Children's Rights Alliance Report

Baroness Walmsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the Children's Rights Alliance report State of Children's Rights in England 2004.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Government are considering this very detailed and comprehensive report. Several of the issues raised in the report were extensively debated during the passage of the Children Bill and many are being addressed through the Change for Children programme.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but may I ask her about two points within the report? Does she agree that the fact that the Children and Young People's Unit has been disbanded and that on the DfES web pages of the Children, Young People and Families Directorate there is no mention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child indicate that neither do the Government have any programme to inform children of their rights? Do these facts indicate that the Government are not really serious about implementing their duties under the convention? Further, does she agree that the Youth Justice Board's target of a 10 per cent reduction in the number of children in custody is both arbitrary and inadequate?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the change with regard to the Children and Young People's Unit was an organisational change. The functions of that unit have been expanded and developed with a wider policy remit through the Children, Young People and Families Directorate, so there has certainly been no loss of interest or competence. I take the point about the website; I shall take that back to the department. We are very serious about following the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In fact, most of our laws go further than the UN convention, which is one of the reasons that we are content not to ratify it as we have made further progress in many areas. As regards the YJB target of 10 per cent, we are very serious about reducing the numbers of children in custody. The emphasis we are placing on non-custodial sentences and community intervention are evidence of that along with a very much more positive programme of appropriate sentencing for young people.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while 10 per cent of children entering care have had involvement with the criminal justice system, 50 per cent of children in custody have had experience of care? Does this not suggest to the Minister that if yet more attention were given to supporting, training and properly remunerating foster carers and residential childcare workers, some of the concerns raised in the State of Children's Rights in England report would be met as regards children in custody at least?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I agree with that. It is absolutely true that there is a very serious relationship between the number of children in custody and those who have been in care. It is something that we are very serious about addressing. We are looking at supporting training and fostering, as the noble Earl knows. In fact, we are increasing fostering allowances, as he also knows, which will bring forward more foster care parents. We are also putting significantly more money into education regarding custodial arrangements. For example, this year an additional £13 million will be put into training, learning and skills co-ordinators and into provision in general. Therefore, we are beginning to make progress in these areas.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, exactly how will children be involved in the appointment of the new Children's Commissioner for England, and when will the appointment be made?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are thoroughly committed to working with children in the process of creating this new appointment. We made that clear on the face of the Bill and we were very happy to do so. As I understand it, children will do two things. They will assess the candidates' ability to understand the problems facing children and help them to think innovatively about how to tackle them. They will also assess the candidates' ability to relate to children. I think we all agree that those are two very essential elements. The candidates will undergo a written exercise. It sounds like a very hard test to me. The involvement of children will ensure that we have a commissioner who is very much in tune with the way in which children think and feel.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what about the rights of the child in regard to handling financial matters? I hoped to give a small gift to my grandchildren but was very surprised to be told that if they were aged over seven they must sign everything themselves. That is difficult to reconcile with my belief that they would not be responsible if there was anything wrong. I thought that no criminal responsibility applied at the age of seven. That seems to me very strange and yet the building society—it was one of the very big building societies—was most insistent on that point. Do children have the right fully to take over their financial affairs? I believe that historically they used to have a guardian in that regard until they reached a certain age.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have extensive briefing but it does not cover that point. I thought that I had prepared for most eventualities. My impression is that children of seven are extremely sophisticated financially. I believe I have read that building societies are requiring some form of personal responsibility. However, I shall be pleased to look at the matter and write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that earlier this year the Minister in the other place, Paul Goggins, stated that the average amount of education per week provided in young offender institutions was 7.1 hours? Does the Minister think that that is an adequate number?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I believe that the figure of 7.1 hours, to which the noble Baroness referred, concerned the figure for education for all under-21s. The most recent figure for this year that we have from the Youth Justice Board is that the average amount of education for 15 to 18 year-olds is 24.5 hours a week. The target for under-15s in secure training centres and local authority secure children's homes is 30 hours a week. As I said to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, we are putting a lot more investment into education, particularly directed at numeracy and literacy, which is the right thing to do. It is having a positive impact on volume and quality; we can see that in some of the prison reports that are coming out now.

Bovine Tuberculosis

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce legislation, similar to legislation for the control of wild deer, that would allow the humane control of badgers by farmers and landowners in areas, not within the Krebs trial areas, where there is a high incidence of bovine tuberculosis.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have no plans to allow badger culling outside the Krebs trial areas while the culling research is still ongoing. However, we have repeatedly made it clear that we are prepared to consider culling badgers as a policy option if the evidence emerging from the trial, or from other research, suggests that it would be successful in reducing bovine TB in cattle and that a cost-effective policy could be developed and implemented.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which he will understand from my point of view is not very satisfactory. I declare my interest as a farmer in a TB hot-spot area. Does the Minister appreciate the strain that farmers are under when they are losing cattle that they have bred over many years? It is causing suicides and nervous breakdowns all over the place, as far as I can make out. Is it Defra's intention that England should become a large badger sett with no cattle?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, and I have repeatedly said from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere that TB is clearly the most important and difficult animal disease facing us in this country. The Government are spending £88 million a year on trying to control it. Simply allowing the non-trial areas to destroy badgers would not necessarily be effective and is certainly not a proven means of controlling the problem. Within the trials, the reactive culling has had to be suspended, because, counterintuitively, the amount of TB has gone up where the reactive cull was being carried out. Nothing is straightforward in this area.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister initiate a scheme to eradicate bovine TB county by county and to ensure that deer, badgers and cattle are treated with equality and culled appropriately, so that we can clear bovine TB from the entire United Kingdom systematically over a period of years?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, whether a county by county approach is exactly the right strategy, clearly we must take account of the outcome of the trials, and if it involves culling badgers we must operate that selectively, aiming at the areas where there is the greatest problem. We do not yet have the outcome of that research, and it is important that the developing TB strategy, which we announced in November, should be given a chance to operate.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as a young house doctor in paediatrics in the 1940s, I saw the ravages of bovine tuberculosis in children, which commonly caused paralysis due to affecting the spinal bones and other long bones. Does the Minister agree that following the pasteurisation of milk, bovine tuberculosis as a human infection has almost disappeared from the UK? I admit that the risks of human infection arising from the infected badger population are limited, but nevertheless it is surely right that that reservoir ought as far as possible to be eliminated.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the human risk from this is pretty limited, and in so far as it exists, it is from contact with cattle. The badger population, and other wildlife populations—deer in particular—carry this disease. Clearly, we must limit the effect on livestock. We must also try to develop ways to ensure that by vaccination, or by other means, the reservoir in wildlife is limited and minimised.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, will the Minister explain why in the Government's relative moral scale the badger rates so much higher than the cow? To preserve a few badgers we are imperilling an enormous number of cows, and having their slaughter merely on the basis that so far there has not been conclusive proof of the degree of connection between badgers and bovine tuberculosis. I cannot believe that the Minister would imperil his children to risk of something from badgers merely because there was some doubt as to the extent of the connection. Why are badgers so much more important than cows?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, badgers are not more important than cows. Cows have a direct connection with the human population, and therefore the control of TB in cattle is absolutely essential. That has been a fixed point of agricultural policy and disease control for decades.
	The research is not so much directed at the degree of connection—clearly there is some degree of connection—but it is also true that much bovine TB is spread by cattle to cattle contact. By and large, badgers do not travel from Somerset to Cheshire; and yet we get disease as a result of cattle movements. The research is directed to see whether culling, of itself, would cause the disease incidents to be more limited. Currently, that is unproven. I referred to the reactive trials. In those areas where there have been reactive trials culling the badgers where it was known there was disease, the effect of the mass culling has been an increase in the disease, largely because unhealthy badgers moved into areas where healthy badgers were being slaughtered.

Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, when does the Minister anticipate that there will be an answer to this problem? When is there to be a report, and can he set out the timing of the report?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the likely outcome of the Krebs trials will now be 2006.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I know that the Government are not complacent on the subject. However, the reality has to be that the longer the situation goes on with tuberculosis increasing, the greater the risk becomes that the disease will overcome the barrier that we have put in its spread to human beings through pasteurisation. In realistic terms, allowing for Krebs—which may in any event be inconclusive—when can we expect to see inoculation against tuberculosis in cattle, so that the disease comes under control? Either we do that or we take absolute steps to ensure that the disease can be eliminated. If that means slaughtering all forms of tuberculosis-carrying livestock, it has to be done.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already described the time scale of the outcome of the Krebs trials. At that point, we will have to take a decision on where the strategy goes. In the mean time, we have introduced a number of restrictions and controls. The noble Lord still speaks as though the problem was inevitably growing, whereas there are fewer herds under restriction from TB and fewer incidents of TB at the moment than there were last year. That is not an indication of complacency, but an indication that there is some slowing down and reversing of the impact of TB under the present policy. If we need to change the policy, particularly in relation to badgers, we will do so in the light of the evidence.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I will not take as long as the previous question. The Minister said that, in the areas largely clear of badgers, there was an increase in TB thereafter due to the influx of badgers from other areas. Surely the answer is to extend the areas under control.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was referring to a particular subset of the trials in which reactive action to cull the badgers where there was an incidence of disease led to a counterintuitive outcome, probably because other badgers had moved in. The logical conclusion of the noble Lord's position would simply be to destroy all badgers everywhere, which is not an acceptable policy either. There are arguments on the other side, such as those put to me today, and longstanding legislative restrictions on what we can do in relation to badgers. If we need to look at that in the light of the evidence, we will do so. However, it is important to recognise that badgers are different from deer and other livestock because of the legislative position.

Iraq: Oil for Food Programme Inquiry

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect the Independent Inquiry Committee into the Iraq Oil for Food programme, chaired by Mr Paul Volcker, to complete its report; and whether the report and conclusions will be published.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Independent Inquiry Committee published an interim report on 9 August and a briefing paper on 21 October outlining its progress. We expect a further report addressing the management of the programme and the role of the UN contractors in January. In May, Mr Volcker said that he did not expect the inquiry to conclude its findings into the broader allegations of corruption by individuals and entities that did business with Iraq for at least a year. We expect the final report to be published.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, even if Mr Kofi Annan has been unfairly pilloried and criticised, does she not agree that it is immensely important that the shadow be lifted from over the UN, and that both the report and the KPMG report authorised by the Iraqi Government should be made absolutely open and clear to the public? Does she agree that, unless we can do that, we will find ourselves constantly frustrated in pushing ahead with the necessary reforms of the United Nations of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other distinguished internationalists have put forward and that we all support?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I agree, my Lords. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about the unfair criticism of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The noble Lord is right. A second report is being undertaken by Ernst & Young into what has gone on at the Iraq end of this unhappy tale. Let me give him an undertaking from the press release put out on 16 November. It said:
	"In the interests of transparency and credibility, full disclosure of evidence (including the UN documents available to it) relevant to its findings will be made when those findings are reported. At the end of the day, there will be disclosures and transparency without, to the best of the committee's knowledge, precedent for the United Nations or any international organisation".
	I hope that that gives the noble Lord the unqualified assurance that he sought.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, although it is clear that the allegations need to be thoroughly investigated as they raise some worrying problems, does the Minister agree that the issue has been and is being used in the United States as a way of denigrating the United Nations as a whole? Indeed, it was striking that, the day that the high-level panel report was published, there were articles precisely about the alleged involvement of Kofi Annan's son in the Oil For Food scandal all over the Right-wing American press. One imagines that the Government will do their best to ensure that the scandal does not cloud the important debate on the high-level panel report and the need to strengthen and reform the United Nations system.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the question of Kofi Annan, perhaps I can do no better than to quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who said on 7 December 2004:
	"Kofi Annan is doing a fine job in difficult circumstances. I appreciate his leadership very much and will be happy if he is allowed to continue with his job without criticism".
	We must wait for the outcome of the Volcker committee before we draw any firm conclusions. We concur with Mr Volcker that he should be allowed to continue and that we must not only determine what has happened in the past but, to avoid any shortcomings that there were in the programme, try to draw lessons for the future.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is the issue not who breached the programme rules, but which civil servants in both the British and American Governments knew that the rules were being broken and refused to make recommendations to deal with those breaches of the rules?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if we say that we must wait for the Volcker committee to report, it is right that we do that. As my noble friend implies, during the life of the Oil for Food programme, we and other member states became aware of attempts to breach the Iraq sanctions regime. In response, the United Kingdom Government took action in a range of ways according to the circumstances. Those included approaches to other governments and the United Nations Secretariat, and action brought through the UN Security Council to counter attempted corruption. Where we became aware, we tried to move, certainly so far as this Government were concerned. Serious as the matters are, I counsel my noble friend that we should await the outcome of the Volcker investigation before drawing any firm conclusion.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the most important thing in the matter is to apply the principles of due process, which are held in high value in the United States too? In this case, due process means the Volcker report, not a kind of lynch mob run by a number of congressional inquiries. Would she not also agree that those congressional inquiries might usefully devote their time to considering how the United States Administration enforced Iraqi sanctions, about which there have been a number of apparently well founded allegations in newspapers as respectable as the Financial Times?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there have been a number of allegations. Noble Lords will recall from the time of the publication of the ISG report that more allegations were made in it. The noble Lord has suggested that we allow for due process. That is another way of putting exactly the point that I have been trying to make, which is that we must wait for the outcome of a report that everyone expects to be published in May next year at the earliest, although there will be an interim report in January. We should wait for Mr Volcker's committee to complete its work.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the initial investigation by the British firm of accountants, KPMG, unearthed what the senior investigator described as,
	"the most sophisticated money laundering scheme",
	he had ever seen and that it could have involved as much as 20 billion dollars? Is it not therefore of the highest importance, as the noble Baroness said, that this investigation should proceed with no inhibition on the documents that should be disclosed, not only to get at the truth but to allow United Nations officials to clear their name and re-establish their credibility?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree strongly with everything the noble Lord said.

Licensing Act 2003

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What indices they intend to use to measure the effects on crime and disorder of the Licensing Act 2003.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will know from the exchanges of correspondence we have had on the subject, the full extent of our review of the Licensing Act 2003 has yet to be determined. We are considering a number of views before making a final decision on the most appropriate way to do this. However, we have already added additional questions to the British Crime Survey on experiences and attitudes towards visiting town and city centres at night as a baseline for our research.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, would not the noble Lord acknowledge that the British Crime Survey is useless for the purposes of distinguishing areas of high concentration of late-night drinking and others that are relatively free of the problem? Given that the police and ambulance services already collect their own internal statistics on the location of crimes and accidents arising from alcohol, why do not the Government simply ask them to publish those figures so that a whole year's baseline figures will be available when the Act comes into force in August 2005?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have never said that the British Crime Survey would be the only method we would use to research the impact of the Licensing Act 2003. The three methods to which the noble Lord referred can certainly be considered in addition. I would be a little nervous about suggesting additional data collection at accident and emergency centres, but the other two suggestions can be considered as part of the range of information that we need.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a experiment that took place last Friday evening in Cardiff city centre where a field hospital was set up and paramedics were able to deal with minor injuries caused by drunken people? Will the Minister look at the report and consider any further measures the Government can take in educating young people on the dangers of drink and in encouraging clubs and pubs to stop offering cut-price drinks, which only encourages greater consumption?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been told briefly about the field hospital to which my noble friend refers and have asked for further information about it.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, does there exist in this field an alliance of charitable organisations similar to that which existed for dealing with homelessness and which was then available for government at local or national level to treat with?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting suggesting. I do not know of an alliance of organisations which would be willing to give evidence, but the group composed of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Department of Health, which are looking into ways of evaluating and reviewing the Licensing Act, would be pleased to hear from any voluntary organisations which wish to contribute their views.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Avebury raised an important point in respect of the collection of data about the operation of the Licensing Act. Is it not vital that local authorities know about the impact of the Act and whether to withhold licences or planning consents in their localities? Does not the timidity on the part of the DCMS in deciding on the indicators demonstrate the consistency in government between that department and the Home Office?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question but, rather obviously, not with the second. A review is being carried out between the Home Office, the DCMS and the Department of Health. A range of activities, including national measures, a process evaluation of the new Licensing Act, local area comparisons on levels of crime, disorder and public nuisance, and the establishment of evidence of good practice which can be used by local authorities is in preparation. I suggest that if the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Clement-Jones, table a Written Question towards, for example, the end of January I could answer in the greater detail necessary to set out the whole range of activities which we are undertaking.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, whatever happened to the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy of which the Government were so proud? Is it a failure?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the review I mentioned was prompted by the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy and it is because of that strategy that we take these issues so seriously.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, when will the Government announce how they will implement the pledge given by the noble Lord when we debated these matters earlier this year, saying that local authorities' costs in implementing the Licensing Act should be met centrally? Why have they not yet had an answer? Why cannot they be told how it will be done?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that question does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, but the noble Lord knows that the consultation process is only just being completed.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, will the Minister, when bringing forward the review, consider that alcohol harm costs £20 billion a year in England and Wales and £7.3 billion because of crime and disorder?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know the origin of those figures, but if the noble Lord would care to write to me about them, I will ensure that they are considered as part of the review which we are undertaking.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, there are two items of business. First, at a suitable time later today, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the Brussels European Council. It has been agreed with the usual channels that the Statement will be taken after the various amendments dealing with the establishment of a Supreme Court.
	Immediately following that Statement, and again with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Scotland will repeat as a Statement the Answer given in another place by the Home Secretary to an Urgent Question, which used to be known by the more familiar title of a PNQ, on the House of Lords judgment concerning the anti-terrorism laws. The two Statements will immediately follow one another.

School Transport Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 27, Schedule 3, Clauses 28 to 34 Schedule 4, Clauses 35 and 36, Schedule 5, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedules 6 and 7, Clauses 39 to 45.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitutional Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House long, but I want to say a few words about procedure, which seems to many of us Back-Benchers to be—how can I put it politely?—somewhat awry.
	On the amendments, we are at Third Reading, the underlying principle of which is to tidy up the Bill. Yet this afternoon and this evening your Lordships are invited to leave out Clauses 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 104—not to mention certain schedules. If these amendments are put to a vote and passed, it makes common sense that they would wreck not only Part 2 but substantially the whole Bill. That may or may not be a desirable effect, but I certainly cannot understand how that can be consistent with the principle of Third Reading.
	I understand that there is some ambiguity in the wording of the Companion on the matter, and no doubt the Procedure Committee will address that in the course of time. However, there is no ambiguity in the Companion's wording on the conduct of debates on Third Reading. Procedures on Third Reading are the same as those on Report. It is perfectly clear on how often, and at what point, a noble Lord may speak to an amendment. That, I hope, is well understood, and we can only expect it to be observed to the letter this afternoon.
	What seems to be less understood is the guidance on the length of speeches on Report. Arguments which have been "fully deployed"—and here I follow the wording of the Companion—
	"in Committee of the whole House should not be repeated at length on report".
	Again I have taken advice on this, and I am told that the same provision should follow through to Third Reading. In other words, arguments which have been fully deployed in a Committee of the whole House or on Report should not be repeated at length on Third Reading.
	It is usual practice for the Government Whips to ensure that the guidance of the Companion is observed, but I would remind your Lordships that the Companion is the property of the whole House. It is open to any noble Lord or noble Baroness to intervene if he or she feels that the Companion is not being observed. Of course, since it is the time of year to be optimistic, we live in hope that none of that will be necessary, that the business will be conducted efficiently and expeditiously and that we can all depart for a relaxed and, I very much hope, a happy Christmas.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Barnett: My Lords, surely someone should reply to the very important point that has been made. Will the Leader of the House or the Chief Whip at least give us the courtesy of a reply to a very important point?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend was referring to the general courtesies open to the House as a whole. However, I entirely understand the concerns that he raised. As he said, this is rightly an issue for the Procedure Committee, and I think that the Procedure Committee should look at it again. Perhaps I may remind the House that, on Third Reading even more than Report, noble Lords should not make Second Reading speeches, should not repeat arguments from previous stages, should speak only once to each amendment and should not speak after the Minister.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, I do not think that that is quite good enough. The fact is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has tabled about 14 pages of amendments which came to us as individuals last Thursday, allowing no time for the amendments to be considered before today. Although this matter should perhaps be considered by the Procedure Committee, perfectly good guidelines are currently in operation and it would appear that they have been broken.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I should remind the noble Earl that the Companion, at paragraph 6.132, states:
	"The principal purposes of amendments on third reading are:
	to clarify any remaining uncertainties;
	to improve the drafting; and
	to enable the government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the bill".

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that that is the purpose of the major part of the amendments that we are dealing with this afternoon. I understand that one of the amendments was not voted on last week because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had delivered only a certain amount of information, and right at the very last minute.
	I think that we ought to celebrate the flexibility of our procedures. On the Order Paper, noble Lords will notice that next to the words "Constitutional Reform Bill", there is a little squiggle which indicates that minimum intervals have been broken and we are dealing with this legislation quicker than might otherwise have been the case. Is that not an advantage to our procedures? Therefore, given the tremendous importance of this legislation, should we not allow a little latitude?
	Before a number of Peers rise to challenge this, would it not be better if instead of wasting time on this subject, we got on with the debate, and if there is a vote, we got on with that too?

Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I disagree so strongly with what the Leader of the Opposition has said that I think, as a Back-Bencher, I ought to say so. The fact is that we have a set of rules on purpose. During the many years in which I—like my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel—sat on that Front Bench, we stuck to those rules absolutely to the letter. Indeed, we were under the impression that it was completely unacceptable to break those rules, and in particular to do things such as endeavour substantially to change a Bill at this stage.
	Flexibility is one thing, the purpose of it largely being clarification and, as my noble friend said, to fulfil commitments. The purpose is not to open up the whole Bill again in order to try to get the House to carry matters which, if they were relevant, should have been carried some time ago. I really do not see how the Leader of the Opposition can possibly ask us to accept that flexibility amounts to the view that we can do anything we like as long as we fancy it. That is simply not good enough when it comes to the way in which your Lordships' House conducts its business.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not aware that I was saying that, and I do not think that we are breaking any rules today. If we were breaking rules, we would not be doing it. On occasion when an amendment has been tabled that does break the rules, the Clerks draw it to the attention of the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition is copied in, and we agree that it should not progress.
	These matters are ultimately in the hands of the House. However, your Lordships have only to recall what happened on the domestic violence Act which came from another place with amendments that more than doubled the size of the Bill and which your Lordships could not discuss except on consideration of Commons amendments; or a recent social security Act, a large part of which was added on Report in your Lordships' House, while the other place had no effective chance to debate issues with major financial implications.
	What we are debating today is not a question of breaking the rules; if we were breaking the rules, we should not do so. This is about continuing a very important debate that affects the existence of Law Lords in this House. Again I urge the House to carry on with a proper debate.
	On Question, Bill read a third time.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"THE RULE OF LAW
	This Act does not adversely affect—
	(a) the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, or
	(b) the Lord Chancellor's existing constitutional role in relation to that principle."

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have had several useful debates on the rule of law. Perhaps I may summarise the position which I think we reached. We all agreed that we do not want to change the Lord Chancellor's existing role in relation to the rule of law. That role goes further than simply respecting the rule of law in discharging his ministerial functions. It includes being obliged to speak up in Cabinet or as a Cabinet Minister against proposals that he believes offend the rule of law. That role does not require him proactively to police every act of government. The role is not one that is enforceable in courts.
	In the debate on this issue at Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sought reassurance that the Government's previous amendment covered the Lord Chancellor's "constitutional duty to speak up in Cabinet". I think that that was the only issue between us. Amendment No. 1 provides such clarity.
	The new draft also avoids any possibility of inadvertently infringing on the Lord Chancellor's existing statutory duty regarding the rule of law. Perhaps I can draw attention particularly to the speech on Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in which he referred specifically to the Witham case. I think that the new wording puts this issue beyond any doubt whatever. I have discussed it fully with the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, and I think that they are content.
	The legality of the Government's conduct is no less crucial to the rule of law than the matters within the Lord Chancellor's remit. The ministerial code requires all Ministers to consult the Attorney-General on issues involving legal considerations. The Attorney-General is the authoritative source of legal advice within the Government.
	The Government have listened very carefully to all the concerns raised in previous stages and shown their willingness to meet those concerns and to engage in constructive debate. I think that we can now be satisfied that not only do we now share the same objectives, but that the draft before us successfully achieves those objectives. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, during the tripartite discussions between the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and myself it became apparent that we were agreed on the principle that we should continue with the existing standard of the rule of law and with the existing constitutional responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to uphold it. We had some difficulty in finding a form of words acceptable to us all, but I am satisfied with the form of words in the amendment. Therefore, I am happy to support the amendment.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the adverb "adversely" clearly qualifies the verb "affect". Is it intended to strengthen or to weaken the impact of that verb?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the words "does not adversely affect" make it clear that the Bill does not affect, one jot, the duty of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the rule of law.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I understand that that is the intention, but would it not be clearer—or less clear—if the adverb "adversely" was left out?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we humbly thought it made it clearer.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I apologise for being more dense than usual.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sorry for not getting the point until the second shot.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recall that, initially, we were unhappy with the expression "adversely"; but, as a result of the tripartite meetings that took place between the noble and learned Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself, it became clear that it added to the sense of what we were trying to achieve. We were trying to say that the Lord Chancellor's existing powers would not be affected in any way that prevented the Lord Chancellor from continuing to fulfil the constitutional duties in the future in Cabinet that he has always fulfilled in the past. I believe that that was the logic behind the use of the expression.
	However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Tebbit, that it carries with it a certain clumsiness and a sense of reluctance, a sense which, initially, I also shared. But I am now entirely happy that, when, in future, the noble and learned Lord seeks to exercise his constitutional powers in Cabinet, he will not in any way be impeded. This has been a good example of constructive thinking between the Government, the Liberal Democrats and ourselves. We are entirely content with the outcome.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend—

Noble Lords: Order.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the procedure book tells us that noble Lords are allowed to speak only once on an amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Woolf: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"REPRESENTATIONS TO PARLIAMENT
	(1) The chief justice of any part of the United Kingdom may lay before Parliament written representations on matters that appear to him to be matters of importance relating to the judiciary, or otherwise to the administration of justice, in that part of the United Kingdom.
	(2) But in relation to Scotland those matters do not include matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, unless they are matters to which a bill for an Act of Parliament relates.
	(3) In this section "chief justice" means—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of that part of the United Kingdom;
	(b) in relation to Scotland, the Lord President of the Court of Session".

Lord Woolf: My Lords, it will be remembered by some of your Lordships that I tabled the amendment, which stands in my name, on Report. At that stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated that he would carefully consider the amendment. It is now in a revised form for reasons which I shall explain, but I understand that the Lord Chancellor is now prepared to support the amendment.
	My noble and learned friend the Lord President, Lord Cullen, also has his name to the amendment and is fully supportive. Unfortunately, his judicial commitments mean that he cannot be here today. He asked me to convey his apologies to the House.
	This is an attempt to square the circle between the present position, where as Lord Chief Justice I can address the House directly, and the position in the future, if the Bill continues in its present form, when I will not have the privilege of appearing before your Lordships.
	The virtue of the amendment is that it will allow the three judges—the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord President in Scotland and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland—to lay written representations before Parliament which are, in the opinion of the judge laying the paper, matters of importance relating to the judiciary or the administration of justice.
	The main difference between the original form of the amendment and the present one is that of the position in Scotland in respect of devolution. Subsection (2) is designed to meet concerns expressed on behalf of the Scottish Executive, that it would not be appropriate for representations to be made to this Parliament on matters under consideration by the Scottish Parliament. The main concern was thought to be that, without the qualification set out in subsection (2), the amendment might have been regarded as undermining the devolution settlement, although it was recognised that in practice problems were most unlikely to occur.
	The formulation which has been agreed means that the Lord President will not be able to make written representations to your Lordships' House on matters that are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament unless there is a Bill or draft Bill under consideration. By convention, this Parliament legislates in devolved areas only with the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
	I do not consider that this will be a power that any of the judges will use frequently. It is an additional safeguard. Apart from the amendment, a Joint Select Committee or a committee of either House may also choose to hear representations from the judiciary. That practice is exercised more often than hitherto but is still relatively rare. The senior judges of the three jurisdictions do not regard the possibility of appearing before a committee as a substitute for the protection forwarded by the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am delighted to hear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is also likely to do so. At the previous stage, I tabled an amendment about committee structure. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it would be considered, but it is not a matter for Third Reading, so I am delighted that this amendment will be accepted.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we too support the amendment. However, it seems to me to belong in Part 5 of the Bill rather than in Part 1. Perhaps that can be looked at in another place.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we also supported this amendment on Report stage. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was to reflect on the amendment. I understand that he has now done so and is about to tell us that he accepts it.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am glad to accept it. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for proposing it. It seems a sensible way of ensuring that the judiciary in every part of the kingdom has the ability to make representations in appropriate cases, which as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice says may be rare, but it is a sensible way of dealing with the point. Again, I express my gratitude to the Lord Chief Justice for proposing it.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has expressed his gratitude, as has everyone else, for what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Earl is speaking after the Minister and this is Third Reading.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Speakership of the House of Lords]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Leave out Clause 13.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the reason for tabling this amendment is not to question the substance of Clause 13, but to ask whether it ought to be in the Bill at all. Surely, issues concerning the Speakership of your Lordships' House, whatever your Lordships' views on the appropriateness of such an office or otherwise, should be a matter solely for your Lordships' House in the context of the Standing Orders of the House.
	In our submission, it is wholly inappropriate for another place to be invited to consider whether or not your Lordships' House should change the arrangements about who sits on the Woolsack. The amendment is tabled for that reason. I do not ask your Lordships to seek to open a debate upon the substance of the clause. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to save time I shall speak to Amendment No. 95 in the group. It would leave out Schedule 5. It is consequential on Amendment No. 3, which would leave out Clause 13. Therefore, Amendment No. 95 may in due course be dealt with formally. Both these enabling provisions on the transfer of the Speakership were consequential upon the office of Lord Chancellor. On Report, it was common ground that they should be left out. An undertaken was given to table these amendments to give effect to that undertaking.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on behalf of my noble friends. My reasoning is entirely the same as his. I therefore need not detain the House.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the principle expressed in our debates on the Speakership of this House by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland, Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Goodhart and Lord Maclennan of Rogart, is that the Speakership is a matter for this House alone. I firmly agree with that principle.
	I equally firmly believe that the choice of Speaker of this House should not be in the gift of the governing party. The provisions in Clause 13 and Schedule 5 remove the automatic link between the Lord Chancellor and the Speakership of this House in primary legislation. They do not preclude the Lord Chancellor from continuing to hold the office of Speaker, if that is the will of this House. They vest those functions, currently vested in the Lord Chancellor as Speaker, in a generic office of Speaker. They ensure that the House can, under its standing orders, appoint a Speaker who is empowered to carry out all the functions currently attached to the Speakership, rather than having a Speaker imposed on the House by the Executive, as is, in effect, the case now.
	That the Speakership is a matter for this House alone is underpinned and underlined by Clause 13 and the Schedule it introduces. The decision we are being asked to make today is not who should occupy the Woolsack, nor whether the Lord Chancellor should continue or discontinue to be Speaker. We are not being invited to agree today—as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would have had noble Lords believe on 7 December—to,
	"a wholesale change that would dispense with the traditions of your Lordships' House and could see us moving towards a full-time Speaker with authority over the House".—[Official Report, 7/12/04; col. 886.]
	Such a claim is, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, without foundation and is a misrepresentation of what these provisions achieve, and what they are intended to achieve.
	All the provisions do is ensure that, should this House collectively choose, at some future date, a Member of this House other than the Lord Chancellor as Speaker, that person can exercise the whole range of functions that fall to that post without the need for further amendment by primary legislation. The amendments would also work if the House were to decide, against the wishes of the Government, that the Lord Chancellor should continue as Speaker, because it would not be prevented by any of the amendments. That is what these provisions achieve—no more, no less.
	In doing so, the provisions strengthen this House's powers of self-regulation. They do not diminish them. I utterly confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. It is our view that this is a matter for this House to decide and not both Houses. I hope that in the light of the reassurance I have given the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we debated this matter at some length on Report. I do not propose to reopen all the questions that were fully discussed then. I remain unconvinced about the merits of leaving this clause on the face of the Bill. But the noble and learned Lord has given an unequivocal undertaking that the Speakership of your Lordships' House remains exclusively a matter for your Lordships' House and that another place will not in any way be involved in our decision. On the basis of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 4:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"TRANSFER, MODIFICATION OR ABOLITION OF FUNCTIONS BY ORDER
	(1) The Minister may by order make provision for any of these purposes—
	(a) to transfer an existing function of the Minister to another person;
	(b) to direct that an existing function of the Minister is to be exercisable concurrently with another person;
	(c) to direct that an existing function of the Minister exercisable concurrently with another person is to cease to be exercisable by the Minister;
	(d) to modify an existing function of the Minister;
	(e) to abolish an existing function of the Minister.
	(2) An order under subsection (1) may in particular—
	(a) amend or repeal any of the following—
	(i) an enactment other than one contained in an Act passed, or Northern Ireland legislation passed or made, after the Session in which this Act is passed;
	(ii) subordinate legislation other than subordinate legislation made under an Act passed, or Northern Ireland legislation passed or made, after the Session in which this Act is passed;
	(iii) any other instrument or document, including a prerogative instrument;
	(b) include—
	(i) any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision, and
	(ii) any transitory, transitional or saving provision,
	which the Minister considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, provision made under subsection (1).
	(3) The amendments that may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) are in addition to those made by or under any other provision of this Act.
	(4) An order under subsection (1) may not include provision that may be made under section 1(1) of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26) (power to transfer functions to other Ministers etc).
	(5) An order under subsection (1) may not be made in relation to any function of the Minister that is within Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister).
	(6) An order under subsection (1) may amend Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister) so as to include any function which, by virtue of provision in the order—
	(a) becomes exercisable by the Lord Chancellor concurrently with another person, or
	(b) is modified.
	(7) An order under subsection (1) may not, to the extent that it amends Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister), be revoked by another order under subsection (1).
	(8) In this section—
	"existing function" means any function other than one that is conferred by—
	(a) an Act passed, or Northern Ireland legislation passed or made, after the Session in which this Act is passed, or
	(b) subordinate legislation made under an Act passed, or Northern Ireland legislation passed or made, after the Session in which this Act is passed;
	"prerogative instrument" means an Order in Council, warrant, charter or other instrument made under the prerogative."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Clauses 106 and 108 deal respectively with the protection of certain functions of the Lord Chancellor and with the power to make supplementary provision. As noble Lords will know, changes are necessary to these clauses to ensure that they continue to apply for functions which are no longer covered by the Bill as a result of changes following the decision of the House on 13 July.
	The details of these proposals are set out in the memorandum sent by the Government to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which is set out in annex A to its fifth report. Accordingly, I shall be brief.
	In essence, these provisions protect judiciary-related and other functions of the Lord Chancellor, so that they cannot be transferred to another Minister by a transfer of functions order and they permit the spirit of the Bill to be effective in relation to functions of the Lord Chancellor that are not dealt with in the Bill.
	The Delegated Powers Committee has commented on these amendments that the power can be used for purposes which need not be supplementary or incidental to the Bill; that though limited to existing functions the power is not limited in the time of its exercise; and that it could be used in the future for purposes other than those arising from the current redistribution of the Lord Chancellor's functions.
	I shall of course be replying formally to the committee, but I thought it appropriate to give an initial response. While I understand the case for a time limit, in some respects the time limit could be inappropriate—for example, where a function of the Lord Chancellor has been missed and comes to light which needs to be abolished, modified or transferred to the Lord Chief Justice or to another judge, or where a function, perhaps in relation to a tribunal, is transferred from another Minister to the Lord Chancellor and would better be carried out in a shared way through consultation and concurrence in accordance with the concordat.
	I shall look again at the provisions in the light of the committee's comments on the use of the affirmative resolution procedure and we will bring forward suitable amendments in another place.
	Finally, I should add that one effect of Amendment No. 79 is to remove the incorrect reference in Clause 109 highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on Report. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, I was present at the discussion of the amendments which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kindly sent to the committee for comment. I am very glad to hear that the Government intend to bring forward amendments in another place. There is no question that these provisions, as drafted, could be used for a considerably wider purpose than exists at the moment in starting from the status quo in future. I think that that is the problem, although I am sure the committee will be very grateful for that.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, without wishing in any way to tease the noble Baroness, this is an important amendment to introduce at Third Reading in the view of the Official Opposition. At first blush we thought that it could have dramatic effects on the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. However, we have now examined Amendment No. 96 in some detail. We have formed the view during the time at our disposal that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is probably properly protected.
	The noble Baroness underlined to your Lordships' House that she would be reflecting on the committee's observations. I am sure that if some gap in the noble and learned Lord's armour is discovered between now and the various stages in another place, the noble Baroness will be swift to make sure that that gap is closed. On that basis, we are happy with the amendment.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am the last person who would want to tease the noble Baroness. But, in the light of comments made before we started our discussion, it is worth noting that these amendments are brought forward to bring the Bill into line with the decision of the House of Lords on 13 July 2004. They could, therefore, have been brought forward on Report. So here we have an example of the Government apparently having acted very late.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made. We trailed very widely those issues that we intended to address, of which this was definitely one. There is no underlying change in policy. As I said, it is designed specifically to bring the provision into line. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for her comments about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We will consider what needs to be done formally in response and in another place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"PROTECTED FUNCTIONS NOT TRANSFERABLE UNDER MINISTERS OF THE CROWN ACT 1975
	(1) The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1 (power by Order in Council to transfer functions of Ministers), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) This section does not apply to the functions of the Lord Chancellor that are within Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister) to the Constitutional Reform Act 2004.
	(7) An Order in Council under this section may amend Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister) to the Constitutional Reform Act 2004 so as to include any function which, by virtue of provision in the Order in Council—
	(a) is transferred to the Lord Chancellor,
	(b) becomes exercisable by the Lord Chancellor concurrently with another person, or
	(c) remains exercisable by the Lord Chancellor but ceases to be exercisable concurrently with another person.
	(8) An Order in Council under this section may not, to the extent that it amends Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister) to the Constitutional Reform Act 2004, be revoked by another Order in Council under this section."
	(3) After section 5(3) (Orders under Act to be revocable) insert—
	"(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 1(8).""
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE (PROTECTED FUNCTIONS OF THE MINISTER)
	(1) The Minister may by order amend Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister) so as to include within that Schedule any function of the Minister under an enactment, other than an enactment contained in an Act passed, or Northern Ireland legislation passed or made, after the Session in which this Act is passed.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) it does not matter whether a function of the Minister is exercisable by him alone or concurrently with another person.
	(3) An order made under this section may not be revoked by an order made under this section."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Transfers: supplementary]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 13:
	Page 6, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"( ) This section applies where a function of the Minister is transferred to another person ("the transferee") by any provision of this Act or of an order under section (Transfer, modification or abolition of functions by order) ("the amending provision")."
	Page 6, line 12, at end insert "amending"
	Page 6, line 16, after "by" insert "the amending provision or any other provision of"
	Page 6, line 24, after first "the" insert "amending"
	Page 6, line 27, at beginning insert "amending"
	Page 6, line 29, after second "the" insert "amending"
	Page 6, line 36, after first "the" insert "amending"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
	"HOUSE OF LORDS AS A SUPREME COURT
	The House of Lords, when exercising its appellate jurisdiction, is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of sections 17 to 23."

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, much of the debate on Report was taken up with the Written Statement that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor produced on the morning of the debate. It showed the projected capital cost for the conversion of Middlesex Guildhall at £30 million. It showed for the first time the cost of building seven new courts to replace the existing courts in the Guildhall—presumably, somewhere near the centre of London. I visited the Guildhall this morning. Six of the seven courts were in operation and I was told that the seventh would also have been in operation, had it not been for Christmas.
	It is said—this is only rumour—that buildings for those seven courts are to be found, four in Croydon and three in Isleworth, neither site being very near the centre of London. Be that as it may, the cost, which was given for the first time, is £15 million—an extraordinarily low figure for building seven new courts. I had hoped that by today we would have had a breakdown of that £15 million, but it has not been provided. So, for the moment, we must accept the figures of £30 million plus £15 million as the capital costs involved in creating the Supreme Court. There will be increased annual running costs of £5 million which, I suppose, can be conveniently capitalised at £100 million, so we are talking of a total in capital terms of £145 million on present estimates.
	I shall leave the question of costs there because, important though they are, something else is more important today. For today is our last chance to stand back from this whole affair and ask a simpler question: not what this will cost but, rather, what is it all for? On 14 December, we had some discussion about the separation of powers. That was because separation of powers had been one of the three reasons given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on behalf of the Judges' Council for supporting the proposed Supreme Court.
	I say no more about that for this reason. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself accepted in Select Committee, at Question 75, and on the Floor of the House, that something more than a theoretical objection to the presence of the Law Lords is needed if we are to remove them from this House. He said that there must be some positive reason, some tangible and real advantage to be gained.
	What, then, are those advantages? From the start, it has been a constant theme of the Government that we need a Supreme Court to bolster or enhance—various words have been used—the independence of the Law Lords. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that on Thursday of last week, the Law Lords gave judgment against the Home Secretary in the case concerning the detention of men without trial in Belmarsh prison. In the light of that judgment, I think that I need say no more about the actual independence of the Law Lords.
	Then it is said, "Ah, but that is not all that matters. What also matters is the perception". It is said that the people are confused. They believe that the judgments of the Law Lords are biased or politically motivated. Those are not my words, they are taken from the Government's consultation paper. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice puts it more diplomatically. He said—this is his second reason—that the creation of a Supreme Court will make the role of the Law Lords more understandable. What more do we want the public to understand?
	On the Friday morning following the decision of the Law Lords to which I referred, I looked through the 10 daily papers in the Library. As one would expect, all 10 covered the story in considerable length. There were numerous references to individual Law Lords—not always, I must say, complimentary—and numerous references to the Law Lords being the highest court in the land. Thus, the Mirror said that,
	"the Law Lords, the United Kingdom's highest court, blows a hole . . . in the Government's war on terror",
	and that,
	"the highest court in the land has utterly condemned a key point in the Government's policy".
	The Sun said:
	"On day one of his new job, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, finds out exactly what he is up against".
	I could give many other instances that I garnered from the papers last Friday.
	Surely any reader of the Sun or the Mirror would realise that the Law Lords, the highest court in the land, had done something that the Government did not like. How, then, can it be said that there is confusion in the minds of the public? How can it be said that their decisions are thought by the public to be politically motivated? The Government produced not a shred of evidence to the Select Committee to support any suggestion of confusion. When I suggested rather timidly that if that was an important part of the Government's case, as it appeared to be, we might commission a survey of public attitudes, the suggestion was brushed aside.
	I accept of course that the public do not know what is meant by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. I accept of course that the public do not know that the Law Lords are an Appellate Committee of this House. But what, I ask, does that matter? They understand very well what matters: that the Law Lords, the name by which they are universally known, form the highest court in the land; and they understand that the Law Lords are completely and fearlessly independent of government—of any government of whatever colour. I therefore cannot accept that public understanding would be improved by moving the Law Lords from here to the Guildhall and calling them a Supreme Court.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Throughout his speeches, he has sought to give the impression that it is the Government who are taking a peculiar view about the incomprehension of the public. He will surely recall the most compelling evidence given to the Select Committee on which he served by the senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, who gave material and particular indications that even those entering law schools in this country did not understand that the House of Lords was the final Court of Appeal in this country. It is hard for this House to understand how the noble and learned Lord can persist in repeating time and again this canard about the view being the Government's only.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: two pieces of evidence were given to the Select Committee. Both were purely anecdotal. One was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham; the other by Professor Diana Woodhouse, who had asked one of her students which was the highest court in the land, and the student answered that it was the Court of Appeal rather than the Law Lords. If that is the best evidence that the Government can produce, heaven help us.
	I cannot accept that moving the Law Lords from the House of Lords to the Guildhall and changing their name would improve in any way public understanding of what they are. Indeed, changing the name could make matters worse, because the public might think incorrectly that we were creating something new and different, like, for example, the United States Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The public might well ask, "Why would any sensible government want to call the same people doing the same job by a different name?"
	The third argument relied on by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was that there ought to be better access for the public. That argument will be dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, when he moves his amendment. When the public want access in large numbers because of the importance of a case, there is no difficulty in making the necessary arrangements. I speak from personal experience, as some 100 or 200 members of the public were present at the Clegg and Pinochet cases. There is no reason why people wishing to visit the Law Lords on more ordinary occasions should not come in through the existing security entrance in Black Rod's Garden and take the lift to the first floor, which takes them to the very door of the committee room. All that would be needed would be a few signposts and perhaps some help from the friendly policemen who now occupy the Lord Chancellor's Court.
	In his speech on 7 December the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred to the Bill as,
	"a gigantic step forward in our constitutional arrangements . . . a piece of great reforming legislation . . . [to] rank in importance with the great constitutional instruments of the past".—[Official Report, 7/12/04; col. 759.]
	It is clear from the context that the noble and learned Lord was referring to the concordat, enshrined in Part 3 of the Bill, at pages 22 to 46. The concordat ensures the future independence of the judiciary. That is the point to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice rightly attached so much importance.
	The independence of the judiciary and the importance of the concordat have nothing whatever to do with whether we should have a Supreme Court; they are completely separate issues that do not touch each other at any point. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that delay could cause the loss of the Bill and that we must not miss this window of opportunity to achieve a short-term advantage, I am not sure entirely what he had in mind. What short-term advantage do we seek to achieve? Surely he cannot mean that we should vote in favour of a Supreme Court for fear that, if the Government lose the vote, we will lose the Bill.
	The future of the Law Lords and the creation of a Supreme Court are questions of great constitutional importance in their own right. They are much too important to be used simply as a lever in pursuit of some other end. The concordat is urgent business, as we all agree; the Supreme Court is not. Let us take those two separate issues step by step. Let us vote today on the merits of a Supreme Court. Such an important issue clearly requires a decision on the merits, uninfluenced by any consideration of what might happen if the vote goes against the Government. If the Government lose this vote, they can always seek to reverse the decision in the House of Commons. That will not delay the Bill. There is not the slightest reason that I can see why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should seek to withdraw the Bill if he loses the vote. If that is his intention, perhaps he will tell us.
	We are not forcing this decision on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; rather it is the other way round. The decision that we are taking today is being forced on us because of the extraordinary press announcement on 16 June 2003, when the Prime Minister said that he would put an end to the office of Lord Chancellor, to the Law Lords and to QCs. Two of those three have since been reprieved, at least temporarily. I invite the House today to reprieve the Law Lords, at least until after the election, so that the electorate can say whether or not they want those changes. I beg to move.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead: My Lords, the principal question raised by this and related amendments is whether the Lords of Appeal should continue rather than be abolished, with in future the same people doing the same job but under a new name and in a different building, not 300 yards from here. Today I wish to offer the House briefly a serving Law Lord's perspective, separating the issues raised in this debate that seem important to me as a Lord of Appeal from those that have been raised but at best are of peripheral relevance.
	I should first make plain that I do not speak for any other Law Lord. As to the attitude of others, the 12 Lords of Appeal remain equally divided on the desirability of a new Supreme Court. In forming my views I have perhaps one advantage over some of my brethren in seeking to achieve a degree of objectivity. If this part of the Bill is enacted, when the sun rises on the new Supreme Court, in 2008, I shall have reached the compulsory retiring age for judges, so the change, if it occurs, will not affect me personally. My views are thus not tainted, consciously or unconsciously, by any impact that the proposed change would have on me personally; it will have no such impact.
	Let me start with the up-to-date position regarding accommodation. Mention has been made of the Law Lords' existing accommodation in terms that might suggest that we have to make do with improvised, substandard facilities which desperately need improvement. Nothing could be further from reality. First, the accommodation for the oral hearing of appeals is provided by the committee rooms where appeals are normally heard; it is very different from the accommodation of an ordinary court. The Appellate Committee meets like other committees of your Lordships' House, with members seated on one side of a horseshoe-shaped table at the same floor level as those addressing the committee. By standards of courts of law, the Law Lords' hearings are conducted in a relatively informal way. We are not robed. No doubt that way of going about things is different from the accommodation provided and the procedures adopted in the court rooms of other Supreme Courts in the common-law world.
	It might be expected that when the Law Lords are released from the restraints imposed by acting as a committee of your Lordships' House, they would want to seize the opportunity to make good those shortcomings. In future, they would conduct their affairs like other courts of law when they sit in their new court rooms in a new Supreme Court. Now they could look like a proper court.
	Not a bit of it: far from wanting to change the existing layout and procedures, conducive as they are to informality and an atmosphere that promotes dialogue, the Lords of Appeal unanimously wish, in a new Supreme Court, to copy and reproduce the existing committee room layout and procedure. It is true that the proposed new accommodation would provide more seating for interested members of the public. But the additional space provided for that in current plans would not be huge. The availability of that additional space cannot be regarded as of much significance.
	In common with most law courts, the occasions when members of the public wish to watch and listen to seemingly interminable legal argument are rare. Our audience ratings are not good. Most visitors to Committee Room 1 leave after a few minutes. When public interest is high—for instance, with the Pinochet appeal—it has usually been possible for the Appellate Committee to sit in an enlarged committee room. But that degree of public interest is exceptional. The need for more space for the public can all too easily be exaggerated.
	As to the Law Lords' other facilities, each of us—in theory, we are 12, but for some years now we have effectively been 11 because my noble and learned friend Lord Saville has been engaged for a long time in chairing the Bloody Sunday inquiry—is privileged to have his or her own room on the second floor west front. The rooms vary in size but even the smaller ones are adequate. They are bigger than some of the judges' rooms in the Royal Courts of Justice. With one exception, they command one of the finest views in London.
	We have as much secretarial assistance as we need. We have four judicial assistants. That is a recent innovation. If more assistants are needed, no doubt they can be made available. We have access to any law books that we need. We have a conference room of our own. We have back-up administration provided by an excellent judicial office. The question of the Law Lords' present accommodation, if not a non-point, is a point of peripheral relevance on this proposed constitutional change.
	Still on accommodation, I turn to an important point; namely, the building in which a new Supreme Court would be housed. The preferred option of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is the Middlesex Guildhall building. Perhaps I may say at once that I readily acknowledge and, indeed, would pay tribute to the unstinting efforts of the Department for Constitutional Affairs to adapt that building to a purpose for which it was not designed.
	At an early stage in discussions a small working party of the Lords of Appeal, of which I was chairman, agreed the accommodation requirements of a new Supreme Court with officials of the department; namely, how many court rooms, judges' rooms and rooms for secretaries would be needed; what the minimum floor space of those rooms should be; and so on. I have no reason to doubt that the Middlesex Guildhall building would be able to meet that specification if the necessary listed building and other consents were forthcoming.
	But there is a further overriding requirement, which is accepted on all sides: the building in which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is housed should be a building that befits that role. It should be suitably prestigious, not for the greater glorification of the judges, but to symbolise and represent to all who see and use the building the importance of the rule of law in this country.
	The site of the Middlesex Guildhall is superb. Unhappily, the same cannot be said of the building itself. No doubt, if the exterior were cleaned, it would look much better. But the main entrance to that Edwardian mock-Gothic building is hardly what one would choose as the perennial television backdrop for news items and interviews concerning activities of a newly created Supreme Court.
	I wonder how many of your Lordships have ever been inside the building. The entrance hall, even when cleared of the present clutter, will always be ordinary and banal and at odds with the distinguished new purpose that the building is being called on to serve. The proposed three court rooms will retain some of their existing original furnishings, including opaque glass windows that are set with coats of arms of successive Lords Lieutenant of the county of Middlesex.
	Those rooms will never rid themselves of the atmosphere of their original purpose—one room as the council chamber and the other two as intimidating criminal courts. Overall, in spite of the great cost envisaged, the interior of the building will always retain much of its heavy, original character. The net result could be only an expensive hybrid, with the building having, in part, the feel of its unexceptional origin and, in part and discordantly, the feel of a latter-day-come new Supreme Court, and with the whole lacking distinction. A new Supreme Court for this country surely deserves better.
	I turn next to the much-debated question of separation of powers. Contrary to what has been suggested, there is no ground for thinking—

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I know that the noble and learned Lord has not had too much opportunity to intervene in these debates before, but we are going over and over old ground. I know that noble and learned Lords feel very strongly about this, as do noble Lords on all sides of the House. But we have now spent 25 minutes on this amendment. This is Third Reading. As was pointed out at the beginning, the purpose of Third Reading is not to go into the basic substance of the Bill. The question of whether it is proper to strike out so many clauses at all is debatable.
	Matters about the windows in the Guildhall, the lifts in this House and so on are not Third Reading points. If we could move to accepting that there is firm opposition in principle to this suggestion, perhaps we may get away from some of the detail that has been dealt with many times before—in Select Committee, in Committee and on Report. It must be remembered that these clauses were all stand-part debates in Committee.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead: My Lords, I am grateful for that reminder, but I shall move on now to a question that is at the heart of the amendment; that is, the much-debated question of the separation of powers. Contrary to what has been said, there is no ground for thinking the present arrangements carry a risk that decisions of the Law Lords may be impeachable in Strasbourg as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	True, such a breach might occur if a Law Lord were to be involved actively in some material way in the legislative process and then proceed to hear an appeal raising a question on the same legislation. But, like all judges, the Law Lords are well aware of the need to be circumspect in their extra-judicial activities. Mention has been made of a recent occasion when a Law Lord recused himself from sitting because of views that he had expressed in a lecture. But that has nothing to do with membership of this House. The position would be the same with any judge who had given such a lecture. That is a non-point.
	Nor is there a question of the Law Lords lacking what has been called "institutional" independence. The conventions of your Lordships' House guarantee as effectively as any statute that only the Law Lords participate in the judicial business of the House. That is another non-point.
	What does remain of this "separation of powers" question is concern that the Law Lords' undoubted independence is not sufficiently obvious. The position is not sufficiently transparent because the Law Lords when discharging the judicial functions of the House are known to the outside world simply as "the House of Lords". That is confusing, it is said; the more so because the Law Lords actually sit to hear appeals within the Palace of Westminster.
	This point calls for serious consideration. If there were substance in it, it would be important. As every lawyer knows, appearances matter. But where the argument falls down is that there really is no ground for thinking that this suggested public misconception actually exists. Last Thursday, nine Lords of Appeal announced their decision in this Chamber in the cases concerning the detention of suspected terrorists. Nothing I have seen or read in the media reports of that House of Lords judgment suggests that anyone misunderstood the position. So far as I know, there was total clarity that the decision was that of the judges known as Law Lords, and they are so known because they sit in the House of Lords at the apex of our judicial system.
	Even so, if the proposed abolition of the Law Lords had no disadvantages, something might be said for making the change on the basis that something might be gained and there is little or nothing to lose. But there is something to lose, something of importance in our constitutional arrangements. I believe that the Law Lords gain from being here and that they would be the poorer. Observations made by many of your Lordships suggest that if we go, the House would be the poorer, and the judicial reputation of this country's court of final appeal long known and respected as the House of Lords would suffer because that reputation would not pass seamlessly to a newly created body.
	Let me put it this way. If all the Members of your Lordships' House were expelled from here tomorrow and given the same job to do, but under a different name and in a different place—somewhere along Millbank, say—would the public perception be the same? I doubt it. The new body would have to build up its own reputation as the Millbank Senate or whatever.
	At the end, your Lordships have to weigh up the different factors: the lack of any real advantage in making the change; the presence of intangible but real disadvantage; the fact that by common accord the present system works; the substantial expense, initial and continuing, of the proposed change; and the absence of any really suitable building. Put all those together and I suggest that the answer to the question before the House is clear.

Lord Woolf: My Lords, when this Bill is compared with the version introduced into the House, there are vast improvements. The judiciary are grateful to the House for making those improvements. However, even in its original form, the judiciary were supportive of the Bill— I emphasise these words—as a package of reforms that would significantly improve the protection provided for their independence. Naturally, and particularly in view of the improvements, the judiciary will be deeply disappointed if the Bill does not now reach the statute book.
	We are conscious that although the Bill might be reintroduced after the election, there is no certainty that any new version would provide an equally satisfactory balance between our long-term traditions and the need, because society does not stand still, for evolutionary reform.
	As I took part in earlier stages of the Bill, I hesitated over whether I should take part on Third Reading, but in my previous addresses to the House I was doing so in my capacity as chairman of the Judges' Council. Although the council approved the package of reforms which included the Supreme Court reforms, it knew, as indicated by my noble and learned friend just a few moments ago, that the Law Lords themselves were split on the advantages of the Supreme Court. I thought, therefore, that as I had myself changed my view from being, so to speak, weakly against the idea of a Supreme Court into being in favour of such a court, it might assist your Lordships to know what has caused me personally to alter my view.
	The situation so far as I am concerned is that the Law Lords are split. That is a factor which is very indicative of what the situation should be. I had the advantage of hearing my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls speak on a previous occasion in very much the same terms as he has today. I also heard my noble and learned friends Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, and I have to say that I was influenced by their words. But I have had to bear in mind that there are Law Lords who would not think it right to get involved in any way in the debate that is taking place, and so we have not heard from them.
	Equally, there are Law Lords like myself who feel that it is wrong to vote in a debate. Now only a very small minority of the Law Lords think it appropriate for a Law Lord ever to vote on a Division in this House, and when they do vote, unfortunate consequences can arise because of the impression made outside this place.
	I can remember a time, I think about nine years ago, when the Law Lords considered moving from this House to occupy what was undoubtedly a prestigious building in Chancery Lane, the then empty Public Records Office. Some of the most senior Law Lords and myself went to inspect the building, and we thought that there would be very real advantages in making the move—for only one reason, that of the improved accommodation. But at the time, because the Law Lords were split, that proposition was taken no further. There was no question at that point of the Law Lords considering there was anything wrong or inappropriate about a Law Lord taking part in a debate or voting. But in the nine years that have elapsed, the focus of the issue has changed. Now the focus concerns the discomfort of some Law Lords about being situated inside this House.
	With the greatest respect to what has just been said so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls, it is right that problems can arise. I am very conscious that one of the matters scheduled to come before the courts next term is whether Parliament has complied with the Parliament Act in passing the legislation to ban hunting. That issue goes to the heart of the powers of the legislature. For obvious reasons, I am not going to say anything about the merits of the issue, but there will be court proceedings relating to it unless the present proceedings are withdrawn.
	A few years back, litigation of that kind would simply never have been anticipated. Now it is a reality, and when we consider the question of perceptions, it is not the perception of those members of the public who understand our legal system that we are concerned with, but that of the ordinary man and woman in the street. If they hear that an issue of the kind I have just referred to is to be adjudicated upon in this House, by Members of this House, will they have reservations about the impartiality of the body that has to determine those issues—assuming that they have sufficient merit to justify being adjudicated upon? That concerns me very much indeed.
	The other matter that concerns me is that if we have six of the 12 Law Lords unhappy at being in this House and in favour of the Supreme Court now, how many more of the Law Lords will take that view in a few years' time? I am in exactly the same position as my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls. Any decision of this House will not affect my ability to take part—if I am invited to do so—as a Law Lord in the considerations of the Appellate Committee.
	The issues that I have indicated do worry me. They have caused me to come to the conclusion that we should take advantage of this opportunity—which may not arise again—of finding a government who are willing to pay for a new Supreme Court. I have to confess that my experience of getting the Government to pay for courts has not always been successful, but at least on this occasion they are determined to do their best. We may not, to our regret, have another opportunity such as this for a long time. I urge your Lordships to vote in favour of the Supreme Court.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I was not proposing to take any part in this debate but, having heard the speeches of the noble and learned Lords—both of whom, of course, we greatly respect—I take the liberty of suggesting to your Lordships that the separation of powers must not be too narrowly applied. Experience bears out that there are legislators who have benefited from exercising judicial functions—I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice agreeing by nodding his head—and there are members of the judiciary who, given the realism that legislative experience brings, will take a broader view. This will help them to reach better judgments if there is not too close a separation of powers.
	The separation of powers was introduced in Europe about 300 years ago. In some countries it has been applied very closely but in our country we have taken a more realistic view. We have undoubtedly benefited in your Lordships' House from the advantage of having the Law Lords with their great legal and judicial experience. They have been able to move amendments to and comment upon legislation that affects the whole of the people. If we lose the Law Lords we shall suffer by not having that advantage.
	I suggest that the time has come for us to take a broader, more flexible and more realistic view of the separation of powers.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I want to speak against these amendments.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I am the first non-lawyer to speak and the House will be glad to know that I do not intend to speak about any legal matter of any kind.
	I rise only because last Thursday the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to my view of the adequacy of the Middlesex Guildhall as a Supreme Court. He said that I was wrong. I differ from him, obviously. I was referring to the architectural merits of the building and I believe the noble and learned Lord was thinking more of the accommodation when he spoke last week. Later, the Law Lords' opinion of the Guildhall was referred to, and they seemed to be not over-enthusiastic about its distinction. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to whom I have listened with admiration many times during his performances at the Dispatch Box, also seemed unenthusiastic about the Guildhall, although I do not think he mentioned it by name for some reason.
	As we have been reminded, this is Third Reading, and I should like to come very briefly to the defence of the Guildhall as an architectural building. Its accommodation was defended by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor last week and again by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, earlier. I shall leave that to one side, however, and speak entirely about the design of the building and its place in architecture.
	Is it adequate? Is it sufficiently distinguished? If I were seeking an opinion on a legal matter, I would not turn to an architect. In the same way, if I were seeking an opinion on architectural merits, I would not turn at first to a lawyer. Although they are admirable in many ways, they have no qualifications along that line.
	I have been to my bookshelves and taken out a couple of books which deal with the architectural merits of the building. Much as I would have liked to, I could not find Pevsner. However, I do have Edwardian Architecture by Alastair Service. He said about the building that,
	"the Free Style of the Middlesex Guildhall of 1906–13 by James Gibson in Parliament Square, Westminster, is a brilliant fantasia of free Gothic striving to blend with the neighbouring Abbey and Parliament . . . [an] assured and convincing performance".
	I also have the Blue Guide, Victorian Architecture in Britain, which states:
	"On the W side"—
	of Parliament Square—
	"the former Middlesex Guildhall (1906–13; J.S. Gibson), one of the very best public buildings of its date, and one of the last Gothic ones. The detail is a fanciful 15C French Gothic treated with Arts and Crafts verve, contrasting plain areas of wall with concentrated carving to the porch, parapet and central tower".
	That is the kind of opinion about a building to which I listen carefully. It is quite clear to me that the building is sufficiently distinguished even for the Supreme Court. I sincerely hope that noble Lords and noble and learned Lords will stop kicking it about in the way they have been doing.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I wish to speak against this group of amendments. I refrained with care from speaking last week when it was plain that there was not going to be a vote. I shall be making some points that have not been made before and I hope that I will be forgiven for speaking in this Third Reading debate.
	Personally, I consider the proposal for a Supreme Court unnecessary and an exercise in political correctness, but I do not regard the proposal as of major constitutional significance or as a threat to the judicial process. The quality and integrity of the judgments, given by the same people exercising the same jurisdiction, will not be affected by the fact that they are sitting in a different place under a new name.
	We also now have a strong sunrise clause which ensures that the building can only be built or altered to a design of which the Lord Chancellor approves after consultation with the Lords of Appeal. So either the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, will be satisfied, or he will be unable to approve the proposal. It comes into force only when that building is constructed according to that design. When, if ever, that will happen is a matter for speculation. In any event, it ensures that the court and the Law Lords will have suitable premises.
	It is also undoubtedly correct that the implementation of Part 2 of the Bill will mean that this House will lose the valuable contribution made by individual Law Lords. But the sunrise clause will again have the effect of postponing that result until Part 2 can be brought into effect.
	The other points that have been made very frequently by those who oppose the Supreme Court and who wish to delete it from the Bill relate to costs. But I was brought up on the principle that supply and cost are primarily a matter for the other place. If the other place is willing to give the Government the money they want to implement the Supreme Court, who are we to say no them?
	In contrast to the proposal for the Supreme Court, I regard the retention of the Lord Chancellor as a Minister of status and independence as of major constitutional importance. Indeed, I believe that there are very few people who would dispute that, of the matters in the Bill, the question of the Lord Chancellor is of substantially greater importance than the matter of the Supreme Court.
	We must therefore consider what effect it would have on the remainder of the Bill and, in particular, on the Lord Chancellor, if we throw the Supreme Court out lock, stock and barrel, as my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd would wish us to do. It is our general belief—whether it is right or not, I do not know—that the Government will accept the retention of the Lord Chancellor in some modified form, provided that they get the remainder of their Bill. But if this House destroys the whole proposal for a Supreme Court, either the Bill will be abandoned, and will come back in the next Parliament in its original and unmodified form, or the other place will surely throw out all our amendments and, in particular, those on the Lord Chancellor.
	It is thus my suggestion to your Lordships that a so-called "victory" on the Supreme Court issue would lead to the loss of everything we have gained on the "Lord Chancellor" front, as well as the loss of the concordat and the Judicial Appointments Commission, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out. It is for this reason that I strongly oppose these amendments.
	I shall make one further point to my colleagues on these Benches. As I understand the matter, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are fairly solidly in favour of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the vote to delete the Supreme Court can be won only if there is a high turnout of Cross-Benchers voting in favour of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I ask them to consider whether this is an issue, and whether this is an apt moment in the political calendar for a large number of Cross-Benchers to unite with the Tories in defeating a major government proposal.
	For those reasons, I am against these amendments. For the same reasons, I am also against the alternative proposal in the amendment in name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, to be moved, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I have a couple of added grounds for opposing that, but I shall keep those until the amendment is moved—if it is.

Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we have had no Tory.

Noble Lords: Law Lord.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I shall be—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, on Third Reading, it is perfectly appropriate and proper to refer to two principles, the answers to which have emerged from the very long debates noble Lords have had on many matters, including many matters of detail to which I shall not refer.
	The first of the questions of principle that the House has to consider—and I hope that Cross-Benchers will consider it—is whether it can be said—indeed, whether it is said—that the Judicial Committee of the House is not competent to carry out the functions attributed to it as a court. That is not said, and cannot be said. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, said not very long ago that the speeches made by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in this House when deciding cases are the most widely quoted in Europe of all the European Courts. They have earned the highest respect. The same is true of the Commonwealth and the common law countries. In many places during the past 12 months, people have expressed astonishment that it should be found necessary to take this step in view of this high reputation for competence.
	The second question of principle is whether it is said or can be said that membership of the House interferes with the independence or the integrity of the members of the Judicial Committee. That is not said and cannot be said. There is no evidence that any influence has been brought to bear on judicial decisions because of membership of this House. I believe that it is important that the Cross-Benchers should consider this matter, not necessarily in league or agreement with the Conservative Members of the House, but standing on their own.
	It seems to me that the other arguments that have been advanced during the debate are largely doctrinaire. At the end of the day, the discussion of the separation of powers does not matter. Many of the other arguments are either doctrinaire or even specious. I invite those noble Lords who are not completely committed to voting one way or the other to say that this is not the time to bring in this change. It is a change that is neither necessary nor justified.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, one of the basic duties of all of us in Parliament is to protect our constitution. In my few brief remarks this afternoon, it is my purpose not to enter into the detail of some of the issues in front of us, but to comment on the constitutional principles that are at stake.
	The House owes the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a considerable debt. This process of constitutional reform started in a most extraordinary constitutional muddle on the back of a government reshuffle. In front of us this afternoon is a Bill that has much greater coherence and principled logic to it.
	I very much support the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that we need to judge this matter in the context of the whole piece of legislation. The preservation of the Lord Chancellor and his post in our constitution is a significant shift and gain in this legislation. It means that the reforms that we are about are evolutionary, not revolutionary. We are moving step by step. Matters such as the establishment of an independent process of appointments are extremely important.
	I would be helped to think about our constitution if we moved the language of what we are doing away from the language of the separation of powers. At this stage in the Bill's life, I shall not repeat the arguments that I have made before in this House. Parliament contains all the faces of our constitutional life. That is why Parliament is the highest court in the land. It is called "the High Court of Parliament" and that is the reality of the matter. Therefore, in principle, the establishment of a Supreme Court does not, of itself, damage the constitutional principles. Where that court happens to meet is a practical concern which is well distant from our constitutional principles.
	If we lose the Law Lords from this House, how is the face of the law in our constitution to inform our parliamentary processes? That question has not been adequately addressed. It is one thing to establish a Supreme Court, and proper to find the right premises for it; it is quite another to remove from this House the legal advice that is necessary under our constitutional provisions. While we have not yet agreed the final shape of the reform of this Chamber, it seems that we have an unresolved issue. Some comment by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might be helpful to us this afternoon.

Lord Richard: My Lords, I should like to make one very brief contribution. Having sat through almost every sitting of the Bill and heard the arguments not once, not twice, but perhaps even more, I have two reflections on it. First, the Procedure Committee of this House really must do something about the procedures on Third Reading. At present, if he or she wishes, a noble Lord can have no fewer than five bites at a particular cherry—one on Second Reading, at least one in Committee, and probably two, three, four or five, at least one on Report, one at Third Reading and, indeed, he or she could make a Second Reading speech on the Motion that the Bill Do Now Pass. I do not think that airing the same argument five times increases its validity or its force.
	Secondly, I listened very carefully, as I always do, to the remarks of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Slynn, about the contribution that the Law Lords make to this House. It is not the Law Lords who make the contribution but the retired Law Lords. If one looks at the Cross Benches of an afternoon, where legislative things are being considered in a legislative way, one sees a fair sprinkling of people who have been Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and are now appearing in the House. If one looks at the way in which committees are constituted, particularly those taking place in the Moses Room, they have a fair, and extremely valuable, sprinkling of retired Law Lords. There seems to be a self-denying ordinance on the part of sitting Law Lords to appear in this House and to speak in this House and now never to vote in this House. If that is the situation, I cannot for the life of me see the argument that says that somehow or other the force of the Supreme Court will be diminished if it is moved outside this building.
	I hesitate to repeat the arguments I put on previous occasions—indeed, I will not do so. They are all on record; they are all well known. I think it really is time that the House decides what it wants to do.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, there is, I believe, an expression from ancient learning, which goes, "All Cretans are liars. I am a Cretan". We have a perfect example of that today, although it is nothing to do with truth. The Law Lords have been trying to influence what we should do by saying that they should not be there.
	We have had a very eloquent speech from the Lord Chief Justice which has certainly planted some doubts in my mind. But it is because he is here, not giving a lecture in Durham or Norwich or somewhere else, that his influence is so important. That, I think, answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The influence the Lord Chief Justice has by making that speech is his position, as a Law Lord, saying they should not have any more influence. It is important that that influence stays in the House.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords—

Lord Brennan: My Lords—

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I think it is time we made some progress.
	I took part last Thursday evening in a discussion programme on television. We were discussing the Belmarsh case, and one of the viewers rang in, saying "Is the Government going to abolish the House of Lords because of this decision?". That is an indication of the confusion that is rampant, not among the journalists who regularly cover these issues, but among the general public.
	The Law Lords are a different set of people doing a different job from the rest of those in your Lordships' House. It is generally inappropriate for serving Law Lords to take part in the legislative proceedings of your Lordships' House. This Bill obviously presents a special case, and I do not suggest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, is in any way acting inappropriately in his very useful contribution to the debate. But the Law Lords do not need to be—nor, I believe, should they be—Members of your Lordships' House. The link between the Law Lords and the House as a whole is a historical link only, and it conceals the true nature of the role of the Law Lords.
	Creating a Supreme Court and giving it a proper home would end the confusion in the minds of the public, here and abroad. It would emphasise the independence and the proper role of the court. It would provide proper facilities not available in your Lordships' House for judges, for lawyers and their clients and for the public. Although I cannot speak as a judge, I can certainly speak as someone who has appeared as a lawyer and also attended other cases as a spectator. I disagree, therefore, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls.
	The facilities provided in this building are far inferior to those in most other countries, and I do not refer simply to the American Supreme Court. About 10 years ago, I visited the Supreme Court of Israel. Accommodation there is far superior to anything in the Palace of Westminster. I believe that poor accommodation is one of the reasons why so few people attend the hearings. Perching in the Committee Rooms of your Lordships' House does not add to the dignity of the highest court in our land, nor to the respect in which it is held.
	It is, I believe, a wise rule that those who make the laws should not interpret them and those who interpret the laws should not make them. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the idea that the Law Lords obtain significant benefit from membership of your Lordships' House or that your Lordships' House, as a legislative body, obtains significant benefit from having serving Law Lords as Members is, in fact, fanciful. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, your Lordships' House does, of course, benefit from the contributions of a number of former Law Lords, and I hope that that will continue to be the case. But that is another matter; it is not a matter for this Bill.
	What has been my party's policy for many years has now been adopted by the Government. We therefore strongly back the Government on this issue, and I hope that your Lordships will as well.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions to speak on this matter in your Lordships' House. As far as concerns Amendment No. 14, I have nothing to add to the outstanding speeches of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Slynn of Hadley. I rise only to say something about the amendment in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and myself. It is in the next group but it is wholly relevant to the subject matter of your Lordships' speeches today.
	I had hoped that that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon would be with us this afternoon. He has been receiving an honorary degree from the University of Glamorgan. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has assured me that he is, at this moment, on the motorway with his foot hard down on the accelerator, hoping to get here in time to add his voice to what I am about to say. But he is, as your Lordships can see, not with us at the moment. So I shall, in a minute and a half, briefly remind your Lordships of what my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said on Report.
	The amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and myself essentially represents a halfway house between the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the position taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
	What is the mischief against which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor directs Part 2 of the Bill? Apart from the noble and learned Lord's wholly misplaced obsession with the doctrine of separation of powers, the noble and learned Lord's main concern has been with the potential confusion between the role of your Lordships' House as a legislature and its role as a court. So far as I can discern, however, there is no evidence, of any cogency whatever, to justify that confusion.
	Indeed, when some of your Lordships sought in the Select Committee hearings to get the Government to undertake some research and public opinion sampling to see whether or not in reality the confusion existed, the Government were extremely reluctant to do so. Nevertheless, so as to make the matter clear beyond peradventure, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon has tabled an amendment that accepts that the final court of appeal, in future, should be called the Supreme Court but that it should continue to sit in the Palace of Westminster, with its own entrance—perhaps the existing entrance, known as Black Rod's entrance.
	My noble and learned friend's proposals would have the double advantage of providing a Supreme Court at minimal cost and at the same time allowing it to continue to operate in a building of unimpeachable quality and excellence. In addition, the amendment would foresee the judges in the Supreme Court continuing to be life Peers, not Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, sitting not in the Chamber of your Lordships' House to give their judgments but in one of the Committee Rooms of your Lordships' House.
	In the view of my noble and learned friend and myself, that would alleviate the concerns that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has about the confusion that might be caused, whether or not those concerns were justified, and at the same time preserve the essential traditions of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, which has served this country so well.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have debated this matter now for many months, and the time has come to deal with the principle of whether or not we should have a Supreme Court. The arguments are well known and I do not intend to rehearse them. It is the position of the Government, the Liberal Democrats, the senior Law Lords and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and I suspect it is the position of quite a number of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, too, that the time has come for there to be a court that is separate from the House of Lords.
	Those of us who were members of the Select Committee that this House sensibly set up to consider the matter were treated to a debate between the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham and Lord Nicholls, as to the merits or demerits of having a Supreme Court. They both came and gave evidence together. We have heard only from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, today, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, takes the view that he should not speak in relation to those issues. Those of us who heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, give evidence on that occasion found his evidence extremely powerful.
	Today, added to that, has been the voice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who makes the point—a point not made before—that half of the Law Lords now feel uneasy about being Members of this House and sitting in this House as a court. He also makes the point that, if it is half of them now, how many more will it be as time goes on?
	I would invite noble Lords to listen carefully to what has been said, to weigh up the merits of the argument and to come to the conclusion that the time has come for the separation to occur, not because of any slavish adherence to the doctrine of the separation of powers but because the idea of having a court separate from the legislature is the way in which every other modern democracy has gone. It is the way that leads to people seeing with great clarity what the true position is.
	I quote Mr Walter Bagehot on the matter; he said:
	"I do not reckon the judicial function of the House of Lords as one of its true subsidiary functions, first because it does not in fact exercise it, next because I wish to see it in appearance deprived of it. The supreme court of the English people ought to be a great conspicuous tribunal, ought to rule all other courts, ought to have no competitor, ought to bring our law into unity, ought not to be hidden beneath the robes of a legislative assembly".
	The time has come to give effect to that quote.
	I turn to two other matters. First, on the accommodation issue, no one disputes that Middlesex Guildhall is able to provide the accommodation that the Law Lords, in the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, said that it needed. The noble and learned Lord expressed the view that he did not think that it was quite appropriate as a Supreme Court. That is an aesthetic judgment that we are all able to make. However, I quote what other noble and learned Lords, who for obvious reasons have not spoken in the debate, have said. The noble and learned Lord Hobhouse, said:
	"Major needs: 1) move to new premises nearer to the RCJ and the Inns and their facilities, 2) have a building sufficient to house us properly and our staff and the facilities which we need".
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Millett, said,
	"My reason for favouring the creation of a new court is entirely practical and pragmatic. The fact is that this House can no longer provide the accommodation, resources and facilities which a properly serviced Supreme Court requires".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. 1293.]
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said,
	"I doubt if any supreme court anywhere in the developed world is as cramped as our own. This is not the product of spite or malevolence or public parsimony. It is the result of an acute shortage of space available to the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminster and a wholly understandable precedence given by the House authorities to those who manage and work in the legislative chamber".

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, having heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, speak at that committee, and having read the various recommendations that he put to it, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not accept, and should he not make it clear, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, was totally opposed to using the Middlesex Guildhall?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would not accept that he was totally opposed to using the Middlesex Guildhall. I have discussed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, his position, and he has reservations about the Middlesex Guildhall, but he is prepared to talk them through and see whether changes can be made. So I strenuously dispute what the noble Lord is saying in that regard.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, with respect, that is simply not right. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will perfectly well remember document no. 93, which was created by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, and had the support of all the Law Lords, in which they said that the Middlesex Guildhall would never be the right building.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have spoken to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. I make it clear that they have reservations about the building, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, does not take the position of saying that it could never be a Supreme Court.
	I turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the matter of the Supreme Court building. He suggests that we keep the Supreme Court in the House of Lords, and refers to the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on the last occasion that we debated this matter. He suggested, too, that it should have Black Rod's entrance as its own separate entrance and that the offices and residence of the Lord Chancellor could be used for the purpose. There are 301 square metres in that part of the building, while the requirements agreed with the Law Lords were that 2,932 square metres were needed. So the idea that it would be possible to make a separate Supreme Court out of that part of the building is, with the greatest respect, not feasible or sensible.
	I respectfully invite the House not to accept the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. It would involve calling the House of Lords Appellate Committee the Supreme Court; it would have to sit in the House of Lords and have as its members Members of this House; and it would get no greater accommodation than it has already. Perhaps a separate entrance could be opened in Black Rod's Garden—but with the greatest respect, that does not involve making the change required to set up a Supreme Court.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I from a sedentary position, which is entirely due to disability and not disrespect, ask him to assist me on one point? There has been more than a hint made that if either of the amendments were approved, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could well discontinue the Bill altogether, thereby bringing to an end those parts that have considerable support such as the position of the Lord Chancellor and the matters that have been successfully achieved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and by the appointments board, thereby causing a great loss of considerable good in the architecture of this legislation. As a Cross- Bencher I have been cautioned to think very carefully how I should vote. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor enlighten us about the threat that has been referred to, certainly obliquely, by the Lord Chief Justice and, I believe, by others?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I make no threats. With respect I want a Bill that has the four parts of the reform we are after: the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor; the concordat—the new relationship with the judges; the Judicial Appointments Commission; and a Supreme Court. A Bill with all those four elements would not then require a further Bill. However, if any element goes, obviously we fail to deliver all four parts of the reform. I make it clear that I make no threats; I invite noble Lords to deal with this issue on its merits.
	Finally, I wish to deal with what the right reverend Prelate said. He was concerned about how the connection with the law would be retained. I wish to deal with three points in that regard. First, I refer to the written representations amendment that was moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Secondly, we would seek to establish a committee in accordance with what was said when replying to the amendments tabled at Report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I cannot say what form it would take but we would be keen to establish dialogue in that regard. Thirdly, I moved an amendment at Report which indicated that there was no bar on members of the supplementary panel—which means in effect retired Supreme Court justices—becoming Members of this House. As was said by someone in the course of the debate—I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—the contribution that is made by lawyers tends to be made by the retired Law Lords rather than by the sitting ones. Therefore, I think that in practice the evolution that the right reverend Prelate sought exists.
	I invite noble Lords to accept the principle of the Supreme Court. I invite noble Lords not to accept the principle and then in every single respect make it the same as it is already by accepting the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has invited the House to deal with this issue on the merits, which is exactly what I asked the House to do, without the thought of any threat in the background that if we do and the Government lose, the Bill will be withdrawn. On the merits, I wish to add only the sentence in document no. 93—which I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must have forgotten—in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, and all the Law Lords, said:
	"We have grave doubts whether, even if radically transformed, these spaces can ever provide a suitable setting. The impression will always remain that the Supreme Court has been crudely thrust into a building designed and built for quite another purpose".
	Having said that, I need only remind your Lordships of the most eloquent speeches of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Nicholls and Lord Slynn, who said all that I would have wanted to say. I wish to take the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 199.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 15 [The Supreme Court]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 7, line 5, at end insert "situated within the Palace of Westminster, but not entitled to use the chamber of the House of Lords for the hearing of appeals or the giving of judgments."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and myself. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 190.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

European Council: Brussels

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council that took place in Brussels on 16 and 17 December.
	"I should begin by congratulating the Dutch Prime Minister and Government on their handling of the Council, and indeed their entire presidency. I also want to congratulate the presidency on achieving the historic agreement to begin accession negotiations with Turkey.
	"This is a hugely important and welcome moment for Europe. Turkey lies at the intersection of three areas of strategic importance to Europe—the Middle East, central Asia and the Balkans. So a stable and democratic Turkey will help strengthen our influence and role in all three areas. Turkey is an important and trusted NATO ally. It will take over the ISAF lead from us in Afghanistan in 2002, and replace EUROCORPS in Kabul next February. Turkey is a strongly growing economy which, as a market of 70 million people, imports over 40 billion euros-worth of goods from the EU each year. Our own trade with Turkey is over £4 billion a year and is growing at 30 per cent annually.
	"Turkey beginning negotiations to join the EU shows that those who believe there is some fundamental clash of civilisations between Christian and Muslim are wrong. Muslim, Christian and other religious faiths can work together in democratic, tolerant and multi-cultural societies. Turkey's membership is of fundamental importance for the future peace and prosperity of Britain, Europe and the wider world. The European Council agreed that Turkey should begin negotiations on 3 October 2005, during the British presidency. Before this happens, Turkey will need to complete its latest reform package. And the Turkish Prime Minister confirmed during the European Council that he was ready to sign, before 3 October, the Protocol to the Ankara Agreement extending the EU/Turkey Customs Union to the 10 new EU member states.
	"This does not constitute formal legal recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. The accession negotiations thereafter are likely to last at least a decade. Turkey's performance, including in relation to respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, will be closely monitored. And we will want to see a satisfactory track record of implementation before each of the negotiating chapters is closed. Moreover, there is the option of long transition periods, derogations, or even permanently available safeguards, should these be required.
	"It is worth emphasising how much Turkey has achieved under Prime Minister Erdogan's leadership. He has taken through nine separate packages of legislative and constitutional reform, bringing the military under civilian control, improving minority rights, abolishing the death penalty, significantly improving freedom of expression, liberalising the economy and reforming the penal code. These reforms must continue, but this House should recognise the extraordinary progress that has been made. And the developments in Turkey over the past two years, following the reforms across central and eastern Europe of the last decade, demonstrate the influence and power of the European Union as a motor for change and a force for good.
	"There were other significant decisions at this European Council. We confirmed the conclusion of accession negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania. Both should join in January 2007. We decided to begin accession negotiations with Croatia on 17 March 2005, subject to its full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal. We decided on several new areas of action and co-operation in the fight against terrorism. We welcomed the agreement reached with Iran on nuclear issues and future co-operation, following negotiations conducted by the UK, France and Germany. If, however, this process is to succeed, as we all want, Iran must sustain its full suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities.
	"The European Council confirmed its full backing for next year's elections in Iraq and its commitment to support these, finance UN protection, and provide continuing reconstruction assistance. The violence and terror directed against Iraqis wanting to have free elections should make us redouble our efforts to ensure democracy defeats terror and those elections take place. Whatever the original disagreement over the conflict in Iraq, that is a unified European position today.
	"We also committed ourselves to support, financially, technically and politically, the democratic transition in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; and we reaffirmed our commitment to achieving, through the Road Map, a negotiated two-state solution. And finally, we committed ourselves to helping to ensure that the re-run of the elections in Ukraine is free and fair, including through sending a substantial number of observers.
	"At this European Council, we achieved an historic British objective with the decision to begin accession negotiations with Turkey during the British presidency next year. If evidence is needed of the benefits of positive engagement and leadership in Europe, here it is, and I commend it to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The most important announcement was the agreement to pursue accession by Turkey. We on this side have long argued for that. But why is it deferred until 2014? Is it because the EU cannot face up to financial reform and the wholesale changes that will be required to the absurd CAP regime? Or is it distaste for Turkish entry among some of the less enlightened EU partners masquerading as caution? We hope that the sensible agreement on how to handle the Cyprus situation, where Turkey has already shown great responsibility, will be one more step towards a final settlement in the future.
	I strongly favour Turkish entry, but can the noble Baroness assure the House that Turkey could not impede potential accession of Armenia to a future EU, given the immense contribution of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora to European civilisation?
	I welcome confirmation of progress with Bulgaria and Romania. Will the noble Baroness join me in congratulating former King Simeon of Bulgaria on his skilful handling of these matters?
	On Croatia, can she say whether the Government are satisfied with the treatment of the Serb minority and Serb exiles by Croatia?
	On negotiations in general, there is a phrase in paragraph 23 of the Presidency Conclusions, which the noble Baroness knows I read carefully, saying that negotiations must take into account "the evolving acquis". Does "evolving acquis" include the draft EU constitution? If so, on what grounds can negotiations legally take that into account prior to ratification of the treaty? And does not the prospect of Turkish membership anyway underline the danger of signing and sealing a new constitution when the adherence of this huge new member state is bound to require substantial further changes in the rules and governance of the Union? Is that not what President Giscard d'Estaing, among others, has warned and is that also not plain common sense?
	On ratification, did the Prime Minister discuss a date for an EU referendum with other EU leaders? If so, can the noble Baroness share that date with us? She might also be able to advise us when we will see a ratification Bill. From time to time, Ministers ask what support we have for questioning whether the proposed constitution is good for Europe. Our answer is "the people". We should just wait and see and it will soon become clear what the peoples of Europe's member states, including this one, really think about changing their constitutions to suit the new order being imposed on them. That will show where the real support for our viewpoint lies. Some may agree but we can be pretty sure that the people of the UK will not.
	So that is the support we have—not of dedicated integrationists, not of dreamers about Europe as a superpower, not of visceral anti-Americans, but of ordinary citizens in their millions who want a Europe that is free and built on nation states and who treasure our constitution and reject its violation by this Government and by remote ideologues who may end up doing more harm than good to the best kind of European cause.
	The summit agreed to lift the arms embargo on China. Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell the House whether a Labour Government would support the sale of arms to China by the UK arms industry.
	On Africa, was French military action on Côte d'Ivoire discussed or endorsed by the EU? On Zimbabwe, yet again there was a bitterly disappointing failure to agree any action in regard to the utterly vile Mugabe regime. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness again—because she has shown continual deep concern for suffering in Africa which is widely respected—whether she asked the Prime Minister to raise that issue. If she did, did he raise it? If he did, why is nothing said about it in the conclusions?
	The noble Baroness says that African nations do not always welcome our intervention, but has she seen the declaration of the EU presidency on 15 December calling on Liberia to revise its electoral law to secure fair elections? Apparently it is good for Liberia for the EU to make demands on democratic processes but not, it seems, for Zimbabwe. Why not?
	Finally, with Christmas approaching—when I hope that the noble Baroness and all noble Lords will enjoy a peaceful holiday—will she agree that no programme must ever be allowed to undermine the ability of Christians in schools and communities to affirm Christian traditions, or indeed to limit the freedom of any other great religious community to speak out freely without fear or favour to assert its doctrines and to proclaim its identity?

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the key statement in the report by the Prime Minister is the description of,
	"the influence and power of the European Union as a motor for change, and a force for good"?
	On almost every line of the Statement there are illustrations of the fact that Europe acting together can have a massive beneficial impact on some of the most difficult, dangerous and intractable problems facing our world. Surely it is within that context that we should look at developments in the European Union and at any dangers or threats to the European Union playing that kind of constructive role in the world.
	As the Prime Minister obviously enjoyed himself at the summit and came back in very fine fettle, judging by the way in which he wiped the floor with the Leader of the Opposition in another place, perhaps I may recommend that he keep up this bounce and self-confidence about Europe and take it to the British people. Some of the ominous threats or wild claims about speaking for the British people made by the Official Opposition would be seen as a sham if the Prime Minister were to show—

A Noble Lord: Bring it on!

Lord McNally: Yes, my Lords, we will bring it on. We see the real case for Europe being the kind of progress that was illustrated at this summit.
	Of course the opening of a dialogue with Turkey is a difficult and quite long process, but it is an entirely welcome one in building that bridge with the Islamic world. I shall make only one comment on that. I hope that both Greece and Cyprus, whose own admission to the European family required a certain confidence and trust by the European Union at the time of their accession, do not now use their position inside the EU as a kind of veto on Turkey's membership. I think that both Greece and Cyprus owe it to Europe to show similar magnanimity and imagination in their approach to settling the Cyprus question as has been shown in the past by Europe towards them.
	On European reform, are preparations already under way so that the British presidency itself is a presidency that tackles some of the needed reforms in Europe, not from the position of the Conservative Party, which is consistently harping on it to do damage to Europe, but from the position that we take—to strengthen Europe and its position with the British people?
	I urge the Minister on another point. In looking east, as it is necessary to do in this long process with Turkey and with Bulgaria and Romania, due concern should be taken also with the southern Mediterranean and the Maghreb and with other areas that also look for closer co-operation with the EU.
	I have only one point on the elections in Ukraine and Iraq. Will the proposed observers be EU observers, or will it be up to each national government to decide how they contribute their observers to these elections?
	Finally, it is rumoured that the Prime Minister may shortly be going to the Middle East. We on these Benches would wish him God's speed on that visit. The hope is that he will use the authority of the European Union to emphasise to Palestinians, to Israelis and to the Americans that there is a European dimension to any lasting peace in the Middle East, and that by playing our active part within the EU to make that contribution, we will also make a very positive contribution to the success of any peace progress that has got under way.
	I join the Leader of the Conservative Party in wishing Members opposite a happy Christmas. But I do think that this is one of the reports back from Europe that should put a spring in the step of all of us who believe that Britain's future is at the heart of Europe and that Europe's future is in bringing better peace to the world.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and questions. I shall try to deal with the specific issues that have been raised.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, specifically asked why it will take so long once we have begun the negotiations with Turkey. As he will know, a long-term reform process is underway in Turkey. It has made substantial progress in the past two years, and that reform process will continue in the years of the negotiating process.
	On the specific point on Armenia, as the noble Lord knows, the agreement at the weekend was to begin accession negotiations with Turkey. As we have stressed, that will probably be a lengthy set of discussions during which Turkey's impact on the European Union will be explored, including its attitude to other countries that are currently in the EU and possibly also to candidates for future membership. The noble Lord asked about the length of the negotiations and the issue of Armenia, but the length of the negotiations will allow an opportunity to discuss those issues.
	The noble Lord knows that there is a ratification process for the draft EU constitution and that individual countries will then take it through their national parliaments or have a referendum. That depends entirely on the legal context within each country. As he knows, a Bill will of course be brought before our Parliament. On the question of when, that will be resolved over a period of time, as the noble Lord knows.
	On China, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he had read the conclusion very carefully. In relation to China it states that the European Council,
	"reaffirmed the political will to continue to work towards lifting the arms embargo".
	The council did not lift the embargo. The Council made it clear that the result of any decision should not be an increase of arms exports from EU member states to China, in terms of quantity or quality. As the noble Lord knows, the Council also highlighted a desire to see progress on human rights in China.
	On Zimbabwe, which we have discussed many times across this Dispatch Box, the noble Lord knows that we have an EU sanctions regime, which includes the movement of people within the ruling ZANU-PF party to the European Union. We would not have had that without international efforts nor without efforts within the European Union. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord says that the European Union has made no progress and has not discussed Zimbabwe. Indeed, the European Union has called for the elections in March next year to be free and fair. There have been discussions not only at European Union level, but also with the UN and with southern African partners. The noble Lord may know that the Southern African Development Community has endorsed a clear set of regulations on elections that we would like to see applied to Zimbabwe. I am quite happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, setting out all those issues. It proves to me that the noble Lord is not aware of the detail of all of the work that is ongoing at present.
	In regard to Christmas, this Government have always made it clear that we are in favour of such opportunities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Like everyone else, I wish the noble Lord a very happy Christmas.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, started by outlining the importance of acting together. I entirely endorse that point. We would not have seen what happened with the peace-keeping force in the DRC, for example, which was led by the French and to which we contributed, were it not for the European Union acting together. We have the largest peace-keeping force in Bosnia. The positive approach taken by the European Union in Ukraine is an important element of that. The context described by the noble Lord is quite right.
	On EU reform, of course we have begun planning for our presidency. The noble Lord may know that, because of the way in which the presidencies now work, planning starts somewhat in advance. There is an attempt to resolve issues of concern to the Union overall in a presidency, but next year, for example, an important dimension of what happens at the European Union level throughout the year will be ensuring some kind of follow through from the Luxembourg presidency to our presidency.
	The noble Lord is right about the importance of closer co-operation with southern Mediterranean countries and the Magreb. The presidency conclusions say,
	"The European Council noted with satisfaction the progress made within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). A first series of Action Plans jointly prepared with Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Moldova, Ukraine, Israel and Palestinian Authority were successfully finalised".
	That is an important element of the programme.
	As regards observation of the election in Ukraine, my understanding is that the OECD will take overall responsibility for that, but there will be a doubling of the British observers to that mission. That was announced by my noble friend.
	On the Middle East peace process, of course, we are working positively to bring about a resolution. The noble Lord is well aware of that. I believe that he will understand if, across the Dispatch Box, I do not say any more about the Prime Minister's travel plans. He will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that the process that was started so long ago reaches a successful conclusion.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on reading the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I refer her to part of the Presidency Conclusions dealing with the financial framework for 2007–13 and particularly I refer her to paragraph 34 because that leaves me with a sense of ambiguity. It states:
	"The European Council endorsed the Commission proposal to maintain the ceiling for the own resources at the current level of 1.24 per cent of EU GNI".
	However, my understanding was that it was part of the ambition of Her Majesty's Government, together with the Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria, to have that figure capped at 1 per cent. Is that a short-term proposal—that it should stay at 1.24 per cent—or is it a figure that applies to the period of the next financial perspective, 2007–13?
	Within the detail of the financial framework, the Presidency Conclusions state:
	"Policies agreed in accordance with the Treaty shall be consistent with the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and solidarity. They should also provide added value".
	I ask my noble friend to consider that at some time she may say to her Cabinet colleagues that when government departments produce explanatory memoranda on European Union matters, the statement of added value should be contained within it, so that we can ensure that a very useful idea is being pursued.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Six member states have argued for a budget of just 1 per cent of GNI. Broadly, we are happy with the progress made under the Dutch presidency. We see the presidency progress report as a fair reflection of the current state of play. However, it is our view that that is only the start of the negotiations. We believe that the priorities of the enlarged Union can be met within a budget of 1 per cent of EU GNI. So we believe that this progress report represents building blocks which contain a range of options that add up to a total budgetary package of 1 per cent of GNI or less. I shall draw the added value point to the attention of my Cabinet colleagues.

Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that perhaps the greatest triumph of the European Union in its history has been the degree to which it has contributed to the spread of human rights, political stability, democracy and open markets over an ever-widening area of western Europe and now central and eastern Europe? We saw that with Germany and Italy first, with Greece, Spain and Portugal, later with the former Communist countries and now most spectacularly with Turkey. That is a visible demonstration of the enormous contribution to European well-being and thus to British well-being that the European Union makes.
	Does the Minister also agree that all those who welcome the prospect of Turkish accession to the European Union, of which happily there are many on these Benches, should support the new constitution? The new constitution provides the flexibility—enabling groups of countries to move forward when other countries do not wish to—that is required in a larger and more diverse community. Far from being a straitjacket, it provides the suppleness and flexibility that will contribute to the success of the negotiations and, ultimately, to the success of Turkish membership?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, before I answer those two questions, it has been drawn to my attention that I said "OECD" in response to the point about the Ukraine elections. I should have said "OSCE". Obviously, I should not use acronyms.
	I totally agree with the noble Lord and the points made about the success of the European Union and, in particular, the points about the spread of political stability, the opening up of markets and human rights. That has had a major impact on the United Kingdom as well as other parts of the European Union. The growth of the European Union is a testament to the importance of those values and principles.
	I agree also with the points made about the new constitution. We have argued long and hard that this is about finding the best way for a Europe of 25 and more to operate. It is important that we establish the values and principles that hold us together, but we need also to look at how we are going to implement the policies which are so important to us as a union. That is what the constitution seeks to do.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I am glad that the decision has been taken to open negotiations with Turkey, during which all the important issues can be considered. All noble Lords who participated in last Wednesday's debate supported that outcome. As I said in that debate,
	"there is a strong argument for supporting a secular state embodying a moderate Muslim faith in an area of the world so beset by religious extremism. Making Turkey a prosperous secular democratic nation can, it is to be hoped, provide an example for others in the region to emulate".—[Official Report, 15/12/04; col. 1337.]
	Nevertheless, there are major uncertainties and risks involved in the process, which may involve some minor modification to the basic tenets of the draft constitution. So we shall all be watching with great interest the negotiations as they unfold.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was aware of the debate. Although I was not present, I read the debate and the noble Lord's contribution in opening that debate. There are uncertainties, but one of the big issues is the important recognition that a country like Turkey, with its size and the developmental challenges within it, is seeking to join the European Union with the unanimous view from within the Union that negotiations should begin. The process of negotiations will give us an opportunity to discuss some of the issues raised by the noble Lord that are of concern to the populations in some other member states. But this is very positive and I think that the European Union made a very important decision over the weekend.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Prime Minister's prospective visit to Israel and to the West Bank to see all the parties involved deserves full support—and, indeed, it is receiving full support throughout the United Kingdom? Although the Minister did not specifically refer to the possible February high-level conference to be held perhaps in London, does she further agree that that also needs support and that it will have more success if governments, other entities and all parties concerned do not try to set preconditions about the contents and agenda of that conference?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the issue of a high-level conference is still under discussion and its possible content is being discussed as we speak. I understand from my noble friend Lady Symons that the discussions are going extremely well. I think that the Prime Minister's work with others on the Middle East peace process deserves all our support.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that it was a very imaginative gesture to invite the UN Secretary-General to the meeting which she described, at a time when he is under a great deal of attack? Will she also say what role the European Union will take in the follow-up to the UN high-level panel's report, which was welcomed by the European Council; and will she confirm that the British Government intend to take a constructive and energetic lead in the implementation of those proposals?
	Does the noble Baroness agree that while the European Council fortunately managed to skirt around a bit of brinkmanship on Cypriot objections to Turkey's application, it is not particularly encouraging that the president of Cyprus, on returning to his country, observed that although he had not exercised the veto on this occasion, there were 62 future occasions on which he would be able to do so—that being a reference to the 62 chapters of the negotiations? Would it not be better if the president of Cyprus focused on how he might contribute to settling the Cyprus problem, rather than on vetoing Turkey's application?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the issue of the EU and the visit of the UN Secretary-General to the Council, that was a very positive thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was a member of the high-level panel. The UK Government, as the noble Lord knows, welcomed the panel's report. We need to go through the recommendations in some detail, but we have given our full support to the Secretary-General. The Prime Minister gave that support in person to the Secretary-General.
	I was at the UN not so long ago and discussed these issues with the Secretary-General. Our representative in New York has been very positive, as the noble Lord knows, in taking these issues forward.
	On the other issue raised by the noble, Lord Hannay, with respect to Cyprus, we all welcome the unanimous decision over the weekend to begin negotiations. We will have to ensure that those negotiations are taken forward in a positive way by all members of the European Union.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the decision on Turkey is a very big one. By the time Turkey is admitted it will be the largest country in what is now called the European Union. Since the Union will then spill over into Asia, it will no longer be purely an European Union. I have made that point before and repeat it now. Exactly what are the limits of expansion of the European Union? Are there to be further expansions into Asia and indeed into North Africa?
	My second question is about arms to China. The continued embargo on arms to China is causing affront to the Chinese themselves. On the one hand, they are being asked to support the war against terrorism; while on the other hand, they feel they are not being trusted to use arms, which might be supplied to them by the West, in a responsible sort of way. I believe that this issue should be settled and settled soon.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the issue of enlargement, I think the noble Lord understands that a certain momentum has now been built up, which we should like to see sustained. We would describe this, I suppose, as an enlargement Council, given the decisions that were taken on Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia as well as Turkey. With regard to the limits, it depends on which particular aspect of European Union membership you look at because some treaties refer to geographic areas and others do not. I hope that the noble Lord will be happy if I write to him on those points.
	On China, I hope that I made the position clear when I read out the conclusion about China: that it will be looked at again. We must remember that the European Union has a strong code of practice with respect to arms, which we in the United Kingdom support.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the point that the noble Baroness made in reply to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. In exactly what way has any of the European initiatives concerning Zimbabwe that she read out improved the lot of the unfortunate peoples of Zimbabwe?
	Secondly, with reference to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, surely now that the Government have taken the step of supporting the expansion of the European Union into Asia, she must know what is the view of the Government on further expansion outside Europe. For example, can she tell me whether, in the event that Israel eventually conforms to the Copenhagen criteria, it will be a potential member of the European Union, let alone the North African states? Surely there must be a geographical line, even if not a political one, that the Government can draw somewhere?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that one reason that we feel it so important to be part of the European Union is because it is a group of many states that can exercise additional weight, as it were, acting together and co-operatively. Any decisions about further enlargement will be taken by the European Union as a whole; they will not be taken by the British Government operating in isolation. That is why it is important to go back to the treaties that govern how the European Union operates and consider the flexibility that that offers for future membership.
	On the noble Lord's first question about improving the lot of the people of Zimbabwe, he will know that the United Kingdom has given substantial humanitarian aid to the people of Zimbabwe, who have been facing food shortages. One of our major concerns has been that the work that the World Food Programme did to identify the difficult and grave situation facing many people in Zimbabwe has not been recognised by the government of Zimbabwe, who have effectively made it difficult for us, our European Union colleagues and others to continue to supply food. Time and again I have said that that is something that the British Government cannot do alone. We need to work with the European Union partners, our other international partners, such as the United States, and, indeed, with the governments of Africa.

Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, whereas the broad thrust of what was decided about Turkey is warmly to be welcomed, there is one major blemish in what is currently envisaged? Does she not agree that, whereas it is perfectly reasonable and in accordance with precedent to have substantial derogations from various of the provisions of membership of the European Union, to envisage permanent derogations in the area of the free movement of people is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic principles of the European Union and should therefore be removed during the course of the negotiations?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have said a number of times that this is the beginning of a process of negotiation. Discussion of the issue of free movement within the European Union, which is one of the principles on which the Union was founded, will be part of the negotiations, which will continue.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, those who welcome the beginning of the accession negotiations with Turkey will now wish to hear from the Government whether it is their first priority to ensure the deepening and strengthening of the decision-making processes of the Union. They should bear in mind that, when Turkey was known as the sick man of Europe in the 19th century, there was a loose relationship between governments of Europe, known as the concert of Europe, which was a conspicuous failure in peacekeeping and the development of common European policies.
	Will the Government now turn their attention not only to gaining the acceptance of the necessity of the European constitution but to participate in the discussions about the future mechanisms for strengthening the European Union's decision-making, acknowledging that that may have financial consequences resulting in their reviewing their commitment of their commitment to the 1 per cent limit? Will they do those things to make a real success of the accession of Turkey, when it comes, and of other countries that have qualified under the existing treaty rules for membership?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking me two sets of questions. One is about decision-making at European Union level. One reason that we have been so positive about the constitutional treaty process is precisely because it is our view that a Union of 25 and larger requires a reform of the structures and processes for decision-making. We have been unequivocal about that.
	With respect to funding, the conclusions state:
	"The financial aspects of accession of a candidate state must be allowed for in the applicable financial framework".
	We have been arguing for a much tighter approach to the European Union budget process. It is our view that we can have an effective and efficient Commission with a budget of 1 per cent of EU gross national income. On the noble Lord's final point about altering for the success of the process, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and others have made absolutely clear but we are in favour of the constitutional treaty and will be arguing strongly for it.

Anti-terrorism Laws: Law Lords' Judgment

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question given in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"I refer the honourable gentleman to the Statement that I made on 16 December 2004. The only thing that I will add is that the case is about the compatibility of our domestic legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Human Rights Act 1998 makes clear, Parliament remains sovereign and it is ultimately for it to decide whether and what changes should be made to the law".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for her Statement. I must say that I am rather surprised at its length. I think that it amounted to no more than two sentences. That is in stark contrast to the judgment of the Law Lords in a document that is at least 100 pages long.
	As your Lordships are well aware, on Thursday 16 December, the Law Lords decided by a majority of eight to one to allow the appeals before them and quash the United Kingdom's order derogating from Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	They declared that Section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Articles 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As noble Lords are well aware, Section 23 allows for the indefinite detention, without charge or trial, of foreign nationals who are suspected international terrorists. The section, of course, does not apply to United Kingdom nationals.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, described the measures as unjustifiably discriminating against foreign nationals,
	"on the ground of nationality or immigration status".
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, stated that,
	"indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law".
	I should like to ask the Minister the following questions. First, since the Bill was passed, the Newton report has suggested a number of changes to the legislation; so far the Government have done nothing. Will they now act on the proposals of the Newton report?
	Secondly, as the noble Baroness well knows, we have repeatedly pressed the Government from these Benches to introduce measures to maximise the possibility of bringing to trial those detained, by allowing the admission and use of intercept evidence against them. Are the Government now reconsidering their position on that matter?
	Thirdly, do the Government have any intention of using the remedial order provisions, under the Human Rights Act 1998 to make the legislation compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, whose provisions underlie the Act? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor at that time, said on a number of occasions, both to your Lordships' House and in other fora, that if a declaration of incompatibility was made by the courts, swift legislative action would almost invariably follow in your Lordships' House and in another place.
	Fourthly, will the Government tell us what will happen to the detainees in the mean time?
	Finally, the noble Baroness will recall that the Appellate Committee also quashed the Home Secretary's order, made under the Human Rights Act 1998: the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001. Unlike the ruling that Section 23 is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, the quashing of the order has immediate effect. What impact will that have on the legality of the detention?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, normally it is customary to thank the Minister for a Statement made in this House, but the one delivered today is wholly inadequate. It behoves us to look back to the very beginning to see what was said then and whether the judgment of the House of Lords Judicial Committee could have been anticipated.
	On 15 October 2001, having heard a Statement from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the proposals for legislation, I said,
	"the Statement seems to envisage creating an arbitrary power of arrest and detention without trial and giving to the Home Secretary an arbitrary right to expel suspects, apparently without any form of judicial process or judicial examination of the merits of the case".
	The quality of the thinking that went into the Government's response then can be gauged from the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave. He said:
	"I do not want to fall out with the legal nobles here. I assure the noble Lord that the legal industry, or legal trade, in this country will still be able to earn a living. We are not going to put them out of business, but neither are we going to let them misuse the legal process on key decisions to frustrate what we are seeking to do with our partners".—[Official Report, 15/10/01; cols. 370–71.]
	The noble Lord's reply seemed to suggest that I was complaining, not about a person being arrested and imprisoned without trial, but that as lawyers my colleagues and I would not get the fees for being engaged in a trial. It was the most extraordinary response, which I have never forgotten.
	Subsequently, in November, the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 was debated in this House. My noble friend Lord McNally moved an amendment asking the House to decline to approve the order until the Bill had received Royal Assent. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I refer to what was said on that occasion. I quoted Blackstone, from the 18th century, who said:
	"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom".
	That 18th century observation was echoed and emphasised in the judgments of the Law Lords last week. My noble friend Lord McNally, in concluding his remarks on the order, said,
	"it is not that we have short memories; we have long memories. The memory we have is that, from Fox to Aneurin Bevan, oppositions have taken their opposition seriously. Even at times of crisis and even at times of war they have defended civil liberties and human rights".—[Official Report, 19/11/01; col. 905.]
	The Government seemed to regard what we said then as something that could be dismissed. They seemed to think that we were not raising any serious objections to what was going on. The reverse has now been shown to be true. Given that the Statement today simply refers us to the Statement made on 19 December 2001—around the time that the statements to which I have referred were made on our side—I ask whether the Government have learnt anything at all. What are they going to do?
	I am sure that a habeas corpus application has been launched already in respect of those imprisoned at Belmarsh. What response do the Government intend to make in the courts to an application for habeas corpus? Will their answer be simply that the Act is supreme and above the European Convention on Human Rights, the derogation from which has now been quashed; or will it be that they do not mind acting contrary to the obligations that they have entered into and contrary to the Act? Those are questions that I put to the Minister, and I look for answers.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is clear from the short debate that we have had already that this is a difficult and complex subject. There are no easy answers. We would need to be completely satisfied that we have made a better choice of those matters than we have already.
	It is right to say that the appeal was about the compatibility of our domestic law with the ECHR. But it also raised some more fundamental questions: how we balance the rights of an individual with those of a nation; how we do so without undermining the fundamental principles of a democracy. My right honourable friend's role as Home Secretary is to protect this nation's security and to ensure the safety and security of this country. That is his first and primary duty. In so doing, he will need to consider with the Government how we balance the rights of individuals against those of society and how we ensure safety and security in a democracy without undermining the values that are at the very heart of it. We remain firm in our belief that there is a public emergency threatening the life of this nation.
	The noble and learned Lords who sat on the matter in the Judicial Committee, with the honourable exception of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, agreed with the Government on that issue. But, of course, the Law Lords found that the derogation was not compatible, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made clear, with the ECHR Article 5, the right to liberty and security, and Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination.
	We need to study the judgment carefully. Of course, it overturned the earlier judgment made by the Court of Appeal, which unanimously upheld our position that the provisions were compatible with our obligations under the ECHR. I do not say that to find fault with noble and learned Lords who made up the Judicial Committee but simply to illustrate the complexity and the difficulties involved in the case.
	It is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether and how we should amend the law. The Part 4 provisions will remain in force until Parliament agrees the future of the law. Accordingly, we will not revoke the certificates or release detainees who we have reason to believe are a significant threat to our security—a judgment that was upheld by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, chaired by a High Court judge.
	Derogation is not something that any government—I repeat, any government—enter into lightly. We undertook when the legislation was introduced that the powers had to be used sparingly, as promised, and that Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise it. Noble Lords are aware that to date 16 individuals have been certified and detained under Part 4. Another individual has been certified but is detained under other powers. Of those, 12 remain in detention. Two have chosen to leave the country, as those detained under Part 4 powers are free to do at any time. So we have honoured that commitment to use the powers sparingly and, of course, the safeguards that noble Lords know only too well were put in place.
	With regard to the recommendations made by the Newton committee, noble Lords will know that we made a commitment that those issues would remain under review. I am sure that noble Lords will remember the debate that we had on renewing the powers, the consideration that was given at that stage and the injunction that I remember ringing in my ears given by noble Lords on various Benches that the matter would continue to be scrutinised before any refreshment of that order next spring. Anxious consideration has continued to be given to those issues.
	Those who have been certified and detained under Part 4 powers are detained because they have been certified as a threat to our security. That considered assessment is supported, as I said earlier, by the security services and has been tested through a superior court of record with access to all the relevant security and intelligence information. This could not be a more serious issue than the one with which we are now faced.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked whether the Government had any intention to take remedial provisions to make legislation compatible. Of course, we will continue to look at those issues. I think that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that we will continue to consider what provisions or alterations will arise as a result of the consideration given to the judgment.
	It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, should refer to the 100 pages of the judgment and also perhaps to the fact that it took 11 weeks for nine Law Lords to come to that decision. That is not a criticism: it is simply a demonstration of how difficult the issue is. If it was easy, we would have found a pathway through before now. The last issue relates to quashing the order regarding the derogation. Section 23 remains effective. Detention remains lawful under domestic law, as the House of Lords has recognised.
	We will come back to Parliament to renew the legislation in the New Year. As I say, we are studying the judgment carefully together with the responses to the consultation exercise launched earlier this year to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the Judicial Committee. The ATCS Act Part 4 powers have made an important contribution to protecting this nation from terrorist threat and remain necessary. We cannot simply abandon them without having viable alternatives.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has pressed us in relation to intercept evidence. The noble Lord will know well that intercept evidence is no panacea. There have always been issues about whether it is safe and proper for those who give us information to have that information disclosed because lives may be put at risk. Those are serious and anxious issues to which the Government continue to give proper consideration, but I am not in a position today to give our final view on that. Of course, we will have to bear that in mind, together with our proper and full response to the issues raised in the judgment.
	To the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I say that these are not issues that we take lightly. We very much take into consideration all the comments that were made, not only as far back as 2001, when the legislation was first mooted, but also most recently in 2003 and the debates that we have had this year. That will continue. When we come back before the House for renewal, obviously we will have to answer for any change that we propose and justify to this House and to those in another place why we are making changes or why we have found it impossible so to do.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in her remarks on the Statement, the noble Baroness made a comparison between the rights of the nation and the rights of the individual. First, does the Minister accept that that is a false analogy? In this country, the rights of all the citizens are an implicit part of what it is to be this nation and include as their very basis a fair trial system and habeas corpus.
	Secondly, the Minister referred to what she described—I wrote her words down—as "finding a pathway" through this admittedly very difficult dilemma. Can she therefore explain why the former Home Secretary dismissed almost immediately the extremely wise and thoughtful report of the Newton committee without giving it full consideration, although it included many suggestions for ways in which the trial of those who are detained today at Belmarsh prison could be dealt with through a trial system and not by indefinite detention?
	Finally, as a distinguished lawyer, does the Minister agree that one of the most fundamental rules of the legal system is that which says that nobody and nothing is above the law and that, without doubt, includes governments as much as it includes individuals?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Baroness that no one is above the law, and that is why we have processes in place. The noble Baroness will know, for instance, that on this legislation it is the onerous duty of those who sit in this House and those who sit in another place to determine which pathway we choose on behalf of the people of our nation. The other place has a mandate from the people, but we have an equally onerous burden to discharge in relation to our public duty to make sure that individuals are kept safe. So I agree with the noble Baroness and perhaps I may say very clearly that we do not propose in any of our actions to be above the law; we are working absolutely within it.
	I also agree that citizens are of course an integral part of the nation state, but there are huge issues at stake here. Whether we like it or not, the threat of terror has changed the paradigm. Most of us do not like it, but that is the reality in which we now live, and therefore we have to make difficult choices. I think that a Member of the other place said that the most important human right is that of the right to life. If one does not have that, nothing else which flows from the European Convention on Human Rights can hold true.
	That is one of the things that we have grappled with, and there have been sincere differences along the way in that debate. Honourable views on both sides of the divide have been voiced, but it is important for us to recognise that, ultimately, the onerous responsibility that rests primarily on the shoulders of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is that of keeping this nation safe. We must remember that we will not be forgiven for failing to discharge that duty. I do not suggest that this is an easy situation. If it was, we would have settled it a long time ago.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the original answer given in another place ought to have been much more emollient because there is no future in a continuing row between the judiciary and the executive? If so, does my noble friend also agree that at this stage there is an urgent need for an olive branch to be held out by the executive in terms which the whole House would recognise—those which my noble friend has given voice to this afternoon, in marked contrast, if I may say, to the original answer?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what my noble friend says and I hope that both here and in the other place no attempt has been made to create any bad feeling between the executive and the judiciary. Both have to discharge their duties, and those duties are different. The judiciary is there to express its view without fear or favour, and in discharging its duty, that is what the Judicial Committee has done. It is our duty, in considering what is right and proper for the safety of this country, to look at the issues, consider them very seriously and then respond in a proportionate and proper way. That is what we intend to do.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Baroness has just said, was it not particularly unfortunate that the Foreign Secretary was reported to say that the eight Law Lords in the majority were "simply wrong"? Is not the embarrassing position in which the Government now find themselves a direct consequence of having imported into our domestic law, when it was not necessary to do so under the terms of the convention, the convention itself? Is it the position of Her Majesty's Government that the question whether the measures taken to deal with the exigencies of emergencies that present a threat to the life of the nation should be quite unchallengeable in any court of law—not as a matter of opinion, but unchallengeable as to the route by which the Government's opinion has been reached? Is that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government? If so, the sooner we know about it, the better.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is not unchallengeable. Your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, know that the whole purpose of setting up the SIAC system was to enable proper challenge to be made. When this legislation went through both Houses of Parliament, it was clear that if it came to the point where there was a statement of incompatibility settled on by the courts, it would be Parliament which, on behalf of the people of this nation, would finally determine what we should do thereafter.
	Of course I hear the argument which says that the ECHR should never have been incorporated into our legislation, but noble Lords know that that is not the view of this Government. Our view is that the ECHR was appropriately incorporated so that we could repatriate those rights home to the United Kingdom, and the UK judiciary would have the privilege of adjudicating on those matters in a manner consistent with our own jurisprudence. That has been done.
	We have to accept that the Law Lords have spoken. We have to consider what they have said and look to see what, if anything, we can do in the future to take into account the pronouncements made therein. As I said earlier, these are complex and difficult issues, but the Government are absolutely committed to looking into them. If we find that there is no other way forward but that which we have already alighted upon, it will be our duty to come back to this House and to the other place and let Parliament decide where we go from there.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I should like to think that the initial reply of the noble Baroness was correct, and she has stressed that the European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated in our legislation. Does that mean that there can be no challenge in Strasbourg to the ruling given last week?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it does not mean that. It would be open to the applicants, if they disagreed with any part of the judgment or, indeed, if they disagreed with an action taken by the Government after the judgment, to take the matter to Strasbourg.
	We do not say anything about that at this stage. As I have made plain, the Government have not settled on their response. We are giving the issue our most anxious and careful consideration. It is every part of our desire to settle on a resolution to this difficulty that is fair, transparent and workable. However, I would stress that the final decision will be taken to safeguard the people of this country. That is the first concern of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend is surely right to say that the threats we face from terrorism are serious and unprecedented, but those threats are also being faced by other countries that operate the rule of law and have respect for democracy and human rights. In considering their approach to the difficult dilemma in which the Government find themselves, will they take into account the fact that, with the exception of Guantanamo in the United States, no other country has taken the same approach as us in practising detention without trial? Would my noble friend care to comment on that and, as I have said, will the Government take the point into account when considering their response to the difficulties they are in?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what my noble friend says, but I should say to the House that one of the beauties of the 25 states forming the European Union is that we are all different. Our structures and laws differ, as do the procedures under which we operate. Therefore it would be quite difficult to compare one with the other because we are not considering like with like.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, whether inadvertently or not, the Minister did not reply to the specific question posed by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. Will the Government, in reconsidering these issues and the alternatives to detention without trial, look again very closely at the seven practical and sensible suggestions advanced by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thought I had answered that point. I apologise if I did not. I swept it up in the alternative issues that we were considering on the review. Noble Lords will remember that we had a quite trenchant debate on the Newton committee review, and some noble Lords raised issues in relation to the seven recommendations. As I said at the time, we shall continue to look at those issues. Clearly they deserve and will continue to have consideration in the review.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that if amendments that were considered by the House on 29 November 2001 had been more sympathetically considered by Ministers and civil servants, we might not have been in the difficulty that we are in today? I refer, in particular, to the amendments dealing with the rights of the special advocate to discuss sensitive information with appellants, recognising that special advocates are perfectly capable of understanding where national security should not be breached.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, when we had the debate on the Newton committee's report, I understood the anxiety and perhaps affront suffered by some who thought that the committee's report was simply dismissed. I said on the previous occasion that it was not dismissed; that it was taken seriously. I certainly attempted to give a full and frank answer in the debate. I hoped that we had settled it that they were issues which were going to be considered. I do not agree with my noble friend that if we had settled on an agreement on 29 November all would have been well. It would not have been because we are still struggling with the same issues. They are not easy, but the fact that we are attempting to deal with them is of great importance.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at least I on these Benches have considerable sympathy for the difficulties in which the Government find themselves? I have a great deal of understanding of the noble Baroness's replies today. For the better understanding of the public outside, will she emphasise what she has already said: that the people whose appeals were upheld recently are free at any time whatever to leave detention; that the door is wide open to them? It is just that they would not be permitted to enter the United Kingdom.
	Is not the problem that the ECHR both prevents the Government deporting those people and prevents the Government detaining them in the interests of the security of the British people? Does not the Minister agree that the final arbiter of such matters will not be Parliament because there can always be an appeal to the court in Strasbourg—which, as I understand it, overrules our domestic law?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his understanding. I am happy to repeat what he so rightly said: all those detained are free to go under their own steam at any moment. Indeed, two have chosen to do so and have left the country. The door is wide open for those detainees to leave at any time they wish.
	The noble Lord is also right to say that the reason why we have not felt able to deport them is the breaches of human rights that may occur if they are returned back to the member state or the country from which they came. But it is right that if they could find another country which is happy to take them they could go, and go swiftly.
	However, Parliament will always be the final arbiter on what our law is because it will decide which conventions we do and do not apply. I do not accept that sovereignty in that sense has been transferred to anyone other than the other place, where sovereignty and the will of the people are best expressed.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the judgment not only endorses the findings of the very distinguished committee of Privy Counsellors but also the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which represents both Houses and is cross-party? Does she not therefore agree that it is very urgent and important that the Government give careful consideration to the judgment because the institutions of Parliament itself have spoken and spoken in line with what the judges have said?
	Does my noble friend further accept that in protecting this country—which is a crucial, critical and central issue—the risk in pursuing current policies is that by increasing embitterment and disillusion among people in this country they increase the dangers? When the provocation is greatest is the very time that we have to demonstrate that we are resolute in standing by those institutions and principles that make our society worth defending and so different from the activities of those who act outside the law, not least through terrorism.
	As to the issue of intercept, is my noble friend prepared to look at the way in which other countries have dealt with the difficult issue of security and the way in which they handle intercept material in court?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course we will look at how other countries handle such material. It is also important that we consider how that material can be utilised properly in our system and the dangers that may be inherent in disclosing information that would put at risk those who work very hard to keep our country safe.
	We are giving the issue urgent attention. I hear what my noble friend says about protecting people and preventing embitterment and disillusionment, but I emphasise that it is for that reason that the legislation has been so judiciously and restrictively used. We are talking about its operation in only 16 cases. It has not been used in a wholesale or disproportionate way in a huge number of cases. I understand the difficulties, but we have tried to restrict its use to cases where it is absolutely necessary.
	This country has a long, proud history, and we are resolute in standing by our institutions. I say it again: the detainees are able to leave under their own steam at any stage. Where the interests and safety of our nation are at risk, we will not be forgiven by the people of this country if we play fast and loose with that safety.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if these gentlemen and the Government decided to ignore the House of Lords warning—

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am sorry. We are out of time.

Constitutional Reform Bill [HL]

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 15.
	[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
	Clause 16 [First members of the Court]:
	[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I shall not be moving any of the amendments that were dependent on the vote on the Supreme Court having gone the other way. That includes the whole of this group; Amendments Nos. 28 to 33; Amendments Nos. 35 and 36; Amendments Nos. 40 to 45; and Amendments Nos. 48 to 51. That is as far as I have got in seeing what I am not going to move. Putting it the other way, I shall be moving, I think with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, Amendments Nos. 148 and 149, which stand on a different footing. Given a few minutes, I should be able to say what other amendments I am not moving.

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
	Clause 17 [Qualification for appointment]:
	[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
	Clause 18 [Selection of members of the Court]:
	[Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 not moved.]
	Clause 22 [Exercise of powers to reject or require reconsideration]:
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
	Clause 24 [Oath of allegiance and judicial oath]:
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
	Clause 25 [Tenure]:
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
	Clause 26 [Salaries and allowances]:
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
	Clause 27 [Resignation and retirement]:
	[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
	Clause 28 [Medical retirement]:
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
	Clause 29 [Pensions]:
	[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
	Clause 30 [Acting Judges]:
	[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
	Clause 31 [Supplementary panel]:
	[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
	Clause 32 [Jurisdiction]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 15, line 17, leave out "this Act or any other" and insert "any"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, these provisions define enactment in subordinate legislation for the purposes of the Bill. Different parts of the Bill extend to different parts of the United Kingdom and it is necessary to define the terms to reflect that. In those parts of the Bill that apply throughout the United Kingdom, "enactment" is defined to include Acts of the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland legislation. In those parts that extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only, "enactment" refers to Acts of this Parliament and Northern Ireland legislation and, where necessary, Measures of the Church of England only. The aim of these amendments is to remove any possibility of uncertainty about the meaning of the terms "enactment" and "subordinate legislation" in different parts of the Bill,
	Amendments Nos. 37, 57 and 74 to 77 make consequential amendments across the Bill on account of the new definitions of "enactment" and "subordinate legislation". I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does Amendment No. 39, which I think is in the group to which the Minister was speaking, change the position in relation to legislation in Scotland via the Scots Parliament as it stands now, vis-à-vis the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 is not part of this 15th group of amendments. The noble Baroness will see that it consists of Amendments Nos. 37, 57, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77. I am sure we can address her concern when we reach Amendment No. 39.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I apologise.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 39:
	After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
	"RELATION TO OTHER COURTS ETC
	(1) Nothing in this Part is to affect the distinctions between the separate legal systems of the parts of the United Kingdom.
	(2) A decision of the Supreme Court on appeal from a court of any part of the United Kingdom, other than a decision on a devolution matter, is to be regarded as the decision of a court of that part of the United Kingdom.
	(3) A decision of the Supreme Court on a devolution matter—
	(a) is not binding on that Court when making such a decision;
	(b) otherwise, is binding in all legal proceedings.
	(4) In this section "devolution matter" means—
	(a) a question referred to the Supreme Court under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) or section 11 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47);
	(b) a devolution issue as defined in Schedule 8 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38), Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) or Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47)."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this amendment fulfils a commitment made to the Select Committee, and underlined in the recommendation at paragraph 283 of the Select Committee's report, to bring forward an amendment to safeguard the separate jurisdictions to be exercised by the Supreme Court in respect of Scottish, Northern Irish and English law.
	The concern which the amendment is designed to meet is that the establishment of the Supreme Court would set off a process of erosion of the distinctions between the separate and quite distinctive legal systems of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland or, as it has been described, the possibility of creeping Anglicisation of Scottish law. It is no part of the Government's proposals to have that effect. The new clause introduced by this amendment, therefore, sets out to forestall any such possibility.
	Subsection (1) is a clear statement that nothing in this part of the Bill is to affect the distinctions between the separate legal systems of the parts of the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) states that a decision of the Supreme Court on appeal from a decision of a court of any part of the United Kingdom is to be regarded as the decision of a court of that part of the United Kingdom, except in relation to a devolution matter, which is dealt with in subsection (3). That is not a new or controversial proposition: it is consistent with the approach of the House of Lords outlined as long ago as 1802 in Johnstone v Stotts by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Eldon, who stated:
	"We are sitting here as the Court of Session in Scotland, to decide as that court ought to decide, and . . . we are bound not to apply our English principles, and our English doctrines".
	Thus, the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson, which revolutionised the English law of tort, did so not because the decision of the House of Lords was formally binding on English courts, but because the principles enunciated in it, although set out in the context of the Scottish law of delict, were of such persuasive force as to be compelling in subsequent English cases.
	Subsection (3) of the new clause maintains the status quo in relation to the effect of decisions in devolution proceedings. A decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the exercise of its devolution jurisdiction is,
	"binding in all legal proceedings".
	Subsection (3) of the new clause accordingly makes it clear that a decision of the Supreme Court on a devolution matter will not bind the court itself when subsequently making a decision on a devolution matter, but will otherwise be,
	"binding in all legal proceedings".
	Finally, subsection (4) of the new clause defines "devolution matter". This term encompasses all those matters that are encompassed in "proceedings under this Act" in the Scotland Act, Northern Ireland Act and Government of Wales Act, again so that the existing position is maintained.
	I think that that also answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, the point that I wish to raise is rather technical. Subsection (1) states:
	"Nothing in this Part is to affect the distinctions between the separate legal systems of the parts of the United Kingdom".
	Although Northern Ireland and, to a limited extent, Wales have had some statutory amendments to their law, the only truly separate legal system is the ancient legal system of Scotland. I hope that I am right in this. I would have thought that, if that is so, that should be made clear in this clause.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are differences between English law and Scottish law, Scottish law and law in Northern Ireland and England and Wales. What this addresses is the distinction between the different legal systems. The noble Lord may have a view about the length and type of the distinctions but, none the less, this amendment seeks to address the fact that there are distinctions and to make sure that they are recognised in the way that I have described. I think there is no contradiction between us. It is simply the way that we have chosen to address this.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Composition]:
	[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
	Clause 34 [Changes in composition]:
	[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
	Clause 35 [Specially qualified advisers]:
	[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
	Clause 36 [Making of rules]:
	[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
	Clause 37 [Procedure after rules made]:
	[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
	Clause 38 [Photography etc]:
	[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
	Clause 41 [Accommodation and other resources]:
	[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
	Clause 43 [Fees]:
	[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
	Clause 44 [Fees: supplementary]:
	[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
	Clause 46 [Records of the Supreme Court]:
	[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
	Clause 47 [Proceedings under jurisdiction transferred to Supreme Court]:
	[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
	Clause 48 [Interpretation of Part 2]:
	[Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 not moved.]
	Clause 68 [Selection of puisne judges and other office holders]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 30, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 69 [Request]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 30, line 38, after "recommended" insert "or appointed"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can in speaking to these amendments, which are purely matters of drafting improvement and consistency. Amendment No. 58 is a drafting amendment to ensure consistency in Clause 69. The additional words make it clear that some judicial appointments will be made by the Lord Chancellor while others will be made by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
	Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 correct the references in Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) and Deputy Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) to bring them into line with Section 10A of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 59:
	After Clause 76, insert the following new clause—
	"SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND
	(1) This section applies to consultation that a person is required to undertake under any of these provisions—
	(a) section 69(6);
	(b) section 70(3);
	(c) section 76((2).
	(2) If the consultation appears to that person to relate to the appointment (or a recommendation for the appointment) of a person to exercise functions wholly or mainly in Scotland, any reference in the provision to the Lord Chief Justice is to be read as a reference to the Lord President of the Court of Session.
	(3) If the consultation appears to that person to relate to the appointment (or a recommendation for the appointment) of a person to exercise functions wholly or mainly in Northern Ireland, any reference in the provision to the Lord Chief Justice is to be read as a reference to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, these amendments deal with two aspects of tribunal appointments. First, a group of them provides for proper consultation in relation to appointments relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 59 provides for the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Appointments Commission to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland rather than the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales where an office holder is likely to sit predominantly in Scotland or Northern Ireland. This will apply to appointments or recommendations to UK-wide tribunals, for example the VAT and Duties Tribunal.
	Amendment No. 64 makes it clear that in Part 3 the title of Lord Chief Justice will mean, unless provided otherwise, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. It is consequential on the introduction of references to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 81 widens the extent of Part 3 of the Bill to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, consequential on the introduction of the consultation arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is a complicated area and we may need to look again at extent in relation to Part 3 of the Bill.
	The second group of amendments deal with appointments to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Next year, as part of the steps towards the introduction of a single tribunal service, responsibility for the administration of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which currently rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will transfer to the Lord Chancellor. At that point, it will be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to become solely responsible for recommending to Her Majesty the lay appointments to that tribunal. Amendment No. 93 therefore deletes the reference to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 82 [Report procedure]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 36, line 5, leave out from "include" to end of line 6 and insert "information—
	(a) which relates to an identified or identifiable individual other than the complainant, and
	(b) whose disclosure by the Ombudsman to the complainant would (apart from this subsection) be contrary to section (Confidentiality)."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to move these amendments, which replace the confidentiality provisions of the Bill. In doing so, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who is not in his place, on his part in drawing this issue to the attention of the House and keeping up the pressure on the Government in Committee and on Report.
	The noble Viscount sent me a note earlier saying that, if he was not here, he would ask me to say on his behalf that he was pleased that the government amendment seemed very satisfactorily to deal with the issue with which he was concerned and that he was grateful to the Government for taking these points on board and remedying them.
	The amendments delete the existing confidentiality provisions in Clauses 86 and 98 and replace them with a new provision to be added into the general provisions of Part 6 of the Bill. This provides for confidentiality in relation to Supreme Court appointments under Clauses 18 to 23 and to judicial appointments and judicial disciplinary matters under Part 3 and under related rules and regulations.
	The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice may agree to disclose what would otherwise be confidential information about the result of disciplinary action that they have taken against judicial office holders. Information is not protected if it is already in the public domain. Subject to that, any unlawful disclosure would give rise to a civil action for breach of statutory duties.
	This group of amendments also brings references in Clauses 82 and 96 into line with the new provisions, requiring that reports from the judicial appointments and conduct ombudsman, which are disclosed to complainants, may not include confidential information about other people. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 86 [Confidentiality]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Leave out Clause 86.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 96 [Report procedure]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 62:
	Page 42, line 16, leave out from "include" to end of line 17 and insert "information—
	(a) which relates to an identified or identifiable individual other than the complainant, and
	(b) whose disclosure by the Ombudsman to the complainant would (apart from this subsection) be contrary to section (Confidentiality)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 98 [Confidentiality]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Leave out Clause 98.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 99 [Interpretation of Part 3]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 43, line 27, at end insert—
	"Lord Chief Justice", unless otherwise stated, means the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 104 [Parliamentary disqualification]:
	[Amendments Nos. 65 to 69 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Before Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
	"CONFIDENTIALITY
	(1) A person who obtains confidential information, or to whom confidential information is provided, under or for the purposes of a relevant provision must not disclose it except with lawful authority.
	(2) These are the relevant provisions—
	(a) sections 18 to 23;
	(b) Part 3;
	(c) regulations and rules under Part 3.
	(3) Information is confidential if it relates to an identified or identifiable individual (a "subject").
	(4) Confidential information is disclosed with lawful authority only if and to the extent that any of the following applies—
	(a) the disclosure is with the consent of each person who is a subject of the information (but this is subject to subsection (5));
	(b) the disclosure is for (and is necessary for) the exercise by any person of functions under a relevant provision;
	(c) the disclosure is for (and is necessary for) the exercise of functions under section 11(3A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54) or a decision whether to exercise them;
	(d) the disclosure is for (and is necessary for) the exercise of powers to which section 88 applies, or a decision whether to exercise them;
	(e) the disclosure is required, under rules of court or a court order, for the purposes of legal proceedings of any description.
	(5) An opinion or other information given by one identified or identifiable individual (A) about another (B)—
	(a) is information that relates to both;
	(b) must not be disclosed to B without A's consent.
	(6) This section does not prevent the disclosure with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of information as to disciplinary action taken in accordance with a relevant provision.
	(7) This section does not prevent the disclosure of information which is already, or has previously been, available to the public from other sources.
	(8) A contravention of this section in respect of any information is actionable, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.
	(9) But it is actionable only at the suit of a person who is a subject of the information."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 106 [Functions of the Minister not to be transferred by order]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 71:
	Leave out Clause 106.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
	After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
	""ENACTMENT"
	(1) In this Act "enactment" includes—
	(a) an enactment contained in this Act;
	(b) an enactment contained in a local, personal or private Act;
	(c) except in sections (Transfer, modification or abolition of functions by order) and 108, an enactment contained in subordinate legislation;
	and any reference to an enactment includes a reference to an enactment whenever passed or made.
	(2) In section 14 "enactment" also includes an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation.
	(3) In Part 2 "enactment" also includes—
	(a) an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
	(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation.
	(4) In sections (Transfer, modification or abolition of functions by order) and 108 and in paragraph 3 of Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister) "enactment" also includes—
	(a) an enactment contained in Northern Ireland legislation;
	(b) an enactment contained in a Measure of the Church Assembly or of the General Synod of the Church of England."
	After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
	""SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION"
	(1) In this Act "subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30).
	(2) In sections (Transfer, modification or abolition of functions by order) and 108 "subordinate legislation" also includes an enactment contained in an instrument made under Northern Ireland legislation."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 108 [Supplementary provision etc]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 77:
	Page 47, line 27, leave out "in a Session after that" and insert ", or Northern Ireland legislation passed or made, after the Session"
	Page 47, line 30, leave out "in a Session after that" and insert ", or Northern Ireland legislation passed or made, after the Session"
	Page 47, leave out lines 37 and 38.
	Page 47, leave out lines 41 and 42.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 109 [Orders and regulations]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:
	Page 48, line 3, at end insert ", except where subsection (1A) applies."
	Page 48, line 4, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
	"(1A) Any power of the Minister to make an order under section (Transfer, modification or abolition of functions by order)(1) or 108 amending an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
	(1B) A statutory instrument to which this subsection applies may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(1C) Subsection (1B) applies to a statutory instrument which contains any of the following—
	(a) an order under section 68(2)(a) or (b) which amends Part 1 of Schedule 11;
	(b) an order under section (Transfer, modification or abolition of functions by order)(1) which amends a public general Act, except where the only such amendment is the inclusion in Schedule (Protected functions of the Minister) of a function of the Lord Chancellor;
	(c) an order under section 108 which amends a public general Act;
	(d) an order under paragraph 5 of Schedule 9."
	Page 48, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) A statutory rule made under a power to which subsection (1A) applies is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 112 [Extent]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
	Page 48, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
	Page 48, line 29, leave out subsection (4).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 113 [Commencement]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 83:
	Page 49, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) No plans may be approved by the Minister unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I did not move Amendment No. 47 on the level of fees—not because I did not think it to be wholly meritorious but because I became aware, between Report and Third Reading, that the Liberal Democrats continued to be unbeguiled by it.
	By contrast, I have not had an opportunity to talk to the Liberal Democrat Benches about Amendment No. 83. This amendment has been altered since Report so as to make the approval by Parliament take place not at the stage when the noble and learned Lord makes the final order but when he has to approve the plans.
	The vote that took place today on the Supreme Court was on the basis that the court would eventually be physically sited at the Middlesex Guildhall and that the costs of setting it up would be a specified amount. This amendment deals with a situation which might arise if, for one reason or another, between now and the projected year 2008, it is discovered that the Middlesex Guildhall is no longer a suitable site for the Supreme Court and therefore ceases to be the preferred option. In those circumstances, the Government might go for an entirely different building at an entirely different level of cost. It seems, therefore, appropriate that, at such a point, the noble and learned Lord should come back to your Lordships' House and ask for renewed permission from your Lordships to go ahead with the proposal. I beg to move.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the proposal of a sunrise clause was, I think, carried without debate on Report because of the hour at which it was taken. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor shakes his head. I thought that it was taken at the very end of the Report stage and was therefore not debated at the time.
	It seems to me that that is in some ways inadequate for this reason: the Lord Chancellor is required only to consult the judges before deciding what plans to implement for the new court. I know that the noble and learned Lord and I disagreed earlier on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said, but if he will be good enough to look at the record, I think he will find that I am right that there was very grave criticism, in principle, of Middlesex Guildhall. Therefore, it is not enough merely to say that it is adequate to consult the Law Lords, when the Lord Chancellor's chosen option may be made despite their views. There should be some other block as well. I support the amendment's proposal to require the Lord Chancellor to bring those plans back to Parliament.
	Finally—and I hope that this gives no degree of offence—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will remember that at the beginning of the Select Committee stage, he was very much opposed to having any sunrise clause at all. I am glad that we have persuaded him that one was necessary.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not regard that as remotely offensive. It just goes to show that one has to listen as a Bill goes through its parliamentary stages.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, makes his point very clearly. He believes that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider, if a new site is chosen, whether the balance of cost and benefit has moved so far away from what was considered during the passage of the legislation that its decision to establish the Supreme Court should be revisited. The intention of the amendment is therefore to allow Parliament to consider again whether or not there should be a Supreme Court.
	We cannot accept that approach. First, the amendment is not limited to the circumstances the noble Lord has outlined. It would require an additional approval—that of Parliament—for plans, regardless of the circumstances. One looks in vain in the amendment for any indication of the purpose of requiring that additional approval. It leaves open the possibility that objections can be made to the Supreme Court plans on any grounds at all, regardless of whether the plans accord with the basis on which Parliament agreed to establish the Supreme Court. That contrasts strikingly with the requirements already in the sunrise provision. Subsection (5) of the clause makes it clear that two things are required of the Lord Chancellor before he is able to approve plans. First, he must have consulted the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Secondly, he must be satisfied, before he approves the plans, that accommodation in accordance with those plans will be appropriate for the purposes of the court.
	The amendment, in striking contrast, sets no parameters for consideration of the plans. There is nothing to prevent those whose objection is on other grounds voting not to approve the plans. They may continue to be opposed to the whole idea in principle. The amendment says, in effect, that Parliament can agree to something but not agree to it at the same time. The noble Lord is in effect asking us to reopen the issue that this House has already debated on a number of occasions and voted on this very afternoon.
	Secondly, I would remind the House that the Bill lays upon the Lord Chancellor the duty to provide accommodation for the Supreme Court. For him to be able to do that, he must have access to public funds. Parliament will therefore be able to approve, or otherwise, the expenditure on the building that the Lord Chancellor proposes to provide. If his concern is that huge amounts of money are to be spent, well, the Commons has to approve supply and the Commons is able to say whether the amount is wrong. We have heard in the debate several warnings from noble Lords who have drawn to our attention significant building projects which went massively over budget; I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is not here to remind us of those points today, as he makes them so well. Again, my department has very considerable experience in the construction and refurbishment of court buildings. I am confident about the robustness of the figures that I have presented to the House. I would also point out that this amendment would not have any impact at all in the situation where a project had been approved and then turned out to cost massively more than previously estimated.
	The amendment also appears to have something missing in technical terms. It requires the Minister to have the agreement of Parliament before he approves the plans, but it does not say anything about the form in which those plans are to be presented to Parliament. Are the plans to take the form of a statutory instrument? The amendment does not say so; and it would be surprising if it were so, for plans for accommodation can hardly be described as a form of legislation.
	The crucial point is that the House has made the decision; the Commons must now consider the issue, and control over expenditure is a matter for the Commons. Therefore, I strongly urge the House to reject the amendment, as it seeks to reopen by the back door an issue that we have just decided.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has suggested apposite amendments to my amendment, which would improve its effect, and I wonder whether he proposes to table them in another place. The noble and learned Lord looks completely blank. In those circumstances, I take it that he is not prepared to take such a course of action.
	I have had the opportunity to talk to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches about my revised amendment. They do not appear enthusiastic supporters of my draft. In those circumstances, I recognise that the only course of action for me is to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 2 [Powers to give directions]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 84:
	Page 55, line 7, leave out "that contain" and insert "to the extent that they consist of"

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I promised to bring amendments to the existing provisions in the Bill on practice directions. At present, Schedule 2 to the Bill provides a mechanism for making practice directions aimed at bringing consistency to the different existing legislative provisions. It transfers the power to make practice directions to the Lord Chief Justice, requiring the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor but only when the practice directions do not relate to the application and interpretation of the law or judicial decisions.
	The amendments do not alter that general policy, but make a number of changes to bring consistency between the different legislative provisions and jurisdictions. They ensure that the concordat agreed between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and myself is properly achieved in the Bill.
	First, Amendment No. 86 creates one mechanism for making practice directions in the civil courts, replacing the different mechanisms for the different civil jurisdictions. As a result, it amends Section 5 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and repeals Section 74A of the Country Courts Act 1984. Secondly, Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 90 make the mechanisms for making practice directions for criminal and family matters consistent with the mechanism for making civil practice directions. Thirdly, Amendment No. 84 ensures that a practice direction for which part requires the Lord Chancellor's concurrence, but part is made by the Lord Chief Justice alone can be made in the same practice direction. Fourthly, Amendment No. 89 provides that family practice directions apply in the civil division of the Court of Appeal and the High Court.
	In addition to these four substantive amendments, technical changes have been made to ensure consistency and clarity. The judiciary have been consulted throughout the process of producing these amendments and has given their approval to the policy behind these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 90:
	Page 55, line 31, leave out paragraph 6.
	Page 56, line 1, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c. 12)
	1 For section 5 substitute—
	"5 PRACTICE DIRECTIONS
	(1) Practice directions may be given in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2004.
	(2) Practice directions given otherwise than under subsection (1) may not be given without the approval of—
	(a) the Lord Chancellor, and
	(b) the Lord Chief Justice.
	(3) Practice directions (whether given under subsection (1) or otherwise) may provide for any matter which, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, may be provided for by Civil Procedure Rules.
	(4) The power to give practice directions under subsection (1) includes power—
	(a) to vary or revoke directions given by any person;
	(b) to give directions containing different provision for different cases (including different areas);
	(c) to give directions containing provision for a specific court, for specific proceedings or for a specific jurisdiction.
	(5) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to directions to the extent that they consist of guidance about any of the following—
	(a) the application or interpretation of the law;
	(b) the making of judicial decisions.""
	Page 56, line 10, leave out from "than" to end of line 12 and insert "under subsection (1) may not be given without the approval of—
	(a) the Lord Chancellor, and
	(b) the Lord Chief Justice.""
	Page 56, line 13, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert—
	"(4) In subsection (3)(a) for "by the Lord Chief Justice or any other person" substitute "under subsection (1) or otherwise".
	(5) For subsection (4) substitute—
	"(4) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to directions to the extent that they consist of guidance about any of the following—
	(a) the application or interpretation of the law;
	(b) the making of judicial decisions.""
	Page 56, line 25, leave out from "than" to end of line 27 and insert "under subsection (1) may not be given without the approval of—
	(a) the Lord Chancellor, and
	(b) the Lord Chief Justice.""
	Page 56, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
	"(4) In subsection (3)(a) for "by the President of the Family Division or any other person" substitute "under subsection (1) or otherwise".
	(5) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to directions to the extent that they consist of guidance about any of the following—
	(a) the application or interpretation of the law;
	(b) the making of judicial decisions.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Other functions of the Lord Chancellor and organisation of the courts]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Page 90, line 14, at end insert—
	"Omit section 74A (practice directions)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 97, line 28, at end insert—
	"180A (1) Schedule 4 (authorised bodies) is amended as follows.
	(2) For "each of the designated judges" in each place substitute "the Lord Chief Justice".
	(3) In paragraph (5) (advice of designated judges)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (4), for "give such advice as he thinks fit" substitute "notify the Lord Chancellor whether he concurs with the application";
	(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	"(5) If the Lord Chief Justice does not concur the Lord Chancellor shall not grant the application."
	(4) In paragraph (b) (decision by the Lord Chancellor)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1) at beginning insert "If the Lord Chief Justice has concurred with the application and";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (c).
	(5) In paragraph 10 (early advice of designated judges), in sub-paragraph (1)(b) for "each of them" substitute "him".
	(6) In paragraph 22 (advice of designated judges)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (4) for "give such advice to the Lord Chancellor as he thinks fit" substitute "notify the Lord Chancellor whether he concurs with the proposal to make the alterations";
	(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	"(5) If the Lord Chief Justice does not concur the Lord Chancellor shall not make the alterations."
	(7) In paragraph 23 (decisions by the Lord Chancellor)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1) at beginning insert "If the Lord Chief Justice has concurred with the proposal and";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (c).
	(8) In paragraph 31 (advice of designated judges)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (4) for "give such advice to the Lord Chancellor as he thinks fit" substitute "whether he concurs with the proposal to recommend the order";
	(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	"(5) If the Lord Chief Justice does not concur the Lord Chancellor shall not make the recommendation."
	(9) In paragraph 32 (considerations by Lord Chancellor) omit "and the advice given by each of the designated judges".

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who alas is unable to be here, and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and myself, attempts to address the serious issue of powers over professional bodies in the legal profession. It may be thought that since we last considered these issues the debate has moved on a little, with the publication of the Clementi report. However, nothing in the Clementi report runs counter to the purposes, or indeed the recommendations, contained in the amendment.
	Under Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as amended by Schedule 5 to the Access to Justice Act 1999, the Lord Chancellor has important powers over professional bodies in the legal profession. I draw close attention to the rules in Part 1 of Schedule 4 relating to powers to designate bodies to have the right of audience and the rights to conduct litigation. Part 3 gives powers to impose rule changes on designated bodies and Part 4 powers to revoke designation. Those provisions are clearly important.
	The schedule requires consultation with a consultative panel, the Director-General of Fair Trading in foreseeing a budget, but none has the power of veto. Under comparable provisions in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 in its original form, there was a veto power. The orders under Parts 1, 3 and 4 require the affirmative procedure.
	The independence of the legal profession is of great constitutional importance. The provisions of the 1999 Act have not been regarded as wholly satisfactory, but this Bill does to some extent strengthen the concerns of the legal profession. Since the ending of the judicial function of the Lord Chancellor would mean that the Lord Chancellor was more of a political figure and less a judicial one, and in relation to discipline, which is recognised and dealt with by the concordat and the Bill, it does appear to make sense to make some transfer of power from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice, as proposed.
	The concordat does not extend to the legal profession, but we believe that for the important powers in Parts 1, 3 and 4 of the schedule two keyholders are needed and that the second should be the Lord Chief Justice, who is now the head of the judiciary, and not, as before, the first among equals. Of course it is the case that Lord Chief Justices are not always progressive and forward-looking and can block sensible changes, unless the Government are prepared to pass primary legislation. We must also recognise that a future Lord Chancellor might wish to force undesirable changes on the legal profession. The "lock" proposal in the amendment is intended to deal with both those possibilities.
	The Clementi report recommends that a legal services board should be set up and should take over powers currently confined under Schedule 4 to the Lord Chancellor. That appears to us at first blush to be a sensible proposal. That would, however, require primary legislation, if accepted by the Government. However, nothing in the report seems to us to offer a reason for not utilising the double key system pending the legislation which may be brought forward based upon the Clementi report. I hope that at this stage that is a sufficient explanation of the purposes that lie behind the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, there are several places in this amendment where the Lord Chief Justice is virtually given jurisdiction over the Lord Chancellor. Incidentally, I think that one or two earlier amendments did the same. Will the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor say whether he is content with that situation? Of course, it may be that in dealing simply with the Court of Appeal the Lord Chief Justice is to be given a predominant position under this Bill. But surely the Lord Chief Justice is not the head of the judicial system even under the Bill. As I understand it, the Government having changed their mind, the Lord Chancellor is to be in that position in the years to come.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, on Report we supported the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on this amendment. Indeed, our name is on it at Third Reading. I do not intend to repeat the arguments I advanced at that stage. However, I should like to make an observation on one of the things the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on Report in response to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart:
	"I suggest to the noble Lord, while understanding that the position of a new Lord Chancellor will be different from that of the old one, in the sense that the new Lord Chancellor would not be a judge as the old one was, that nevertheless it would be unwise to impose a judicial veto at this stage, when the issue of the regulation of the legal profession is under review by Sir David Clementi".—[Official Report, 7/12/04; col. 821.]
	Having seen a copy of the Clementi report in the past week, I submit that, as a result of what Sir David proposes, there is every reason to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice a veto over changes proposed by future Lord Chancellors. It is absolutely critical that, whatever business arrangements are put in place by future legislation for the legal profession, the professional standards of lawyers are protected. No one is in a better position to protect those standards than the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, I believe that, since Report, we have added reasons to support the proposals by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Maclennan of Rogart.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, I shall deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Throughout the Bill there are provisions which put the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice together in determining what should happen in relation to various issues regarding the judiciary. It is also made clear in the Bill that once the reforms come into place, even though the office of Lord Chancellor survives, he or she will no longer be the head of the judiciary; it will be the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, I do not regard it as an objection in principle to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, that they put the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor in a double lock situation—to use the noble Lord's phrase—as that is reflected in a huge number of places throughout the Bill.
	However, I hope that I can persuade the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Kingsland, that these would not be appropriate amendments. Currently the determinative role in relation to deciding whether or not people have rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation is put with the Lord Chancellor as a Minister. He has to consult not just the Lord Chief Justice but also a number of other policy driven bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading, the legal services consultative committee and each of the four designated senior judges. What the Minister is doing there is consulting all the appropriate bodies and making an appropriate policy decision. That is an appropriate way to deal with the matter so long as he is compelled to consult the relevant judges, which he is under the arrangements.
	Sir David Clementi proposes that instead of the judges being involved in a direct way in the regulation of the profession, as they are—for example, the Master of the Rolls is responsible for regulating solicitors—they should in effect be taken out of the picture and a legal services board be put into the picture so that it is much more outward looking. We have welcomed that proposal; we think it is the right way forward. We think it is the wrong way forward at the moment to transfer part of the key to the Lord Chief Justice. I respectfully submit that the right course is to leave things as they are with me giving an assurance which I gave previously. I repeat it and I hope that it influences the noble Lords' consideration of what to do. I made it absolutely clear that,
	"in exercising my powers under the 1999 arrangements, I shall exercise them with a view to ensuring that neither the independence of the judiciary nor access to justice is adversely affected".—[Official Report, 7/12/04; col. 822.]
	I very much hope that assurance will set at rest the legitimate concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Kingsland, because it would be a grave mistake at this stage to make the change that they propose. I certainly do not intend to exercise my powers in a different way from that of Lord Chancellors in the past. There has only been one such Lord Chancellor as the relevant arrangements were put in place only in 1999. However, I would envisage doing it in that way pending the changes suggested by Sir David Clementi. I hope that in the light of the assurance I gave on Report and just now that will ease the understandable concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. His concerns are understandable but I do not think that his solution is the correct one.

Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I—

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we are at Third Reading. Once the Minister has sat down, I am afraid that there is no opportunity to make further points.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I understood that it was perfectly in order for me to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for clarifying and confirming what the Government intend should be the future responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and of the Lord Chief Justice. He has clarified that and I am glad he has.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor helpfully repeated the assurance that he gave on an earlier occasion. Since that occasion, of course, the Clementi report has intervened. That does to some extent change the situation as it anticipates that there will be further primary legislation. That may be quite some time away. My concerns are that even the existing arrangements under the 1999 Act have given rise to some criticism and concern which this amendment is intended to address.
	I confess to being not entirely clear why the association of the Lord Chief Justice with this measure to protect the independence of the professions should arouse such emphatic rejection by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Of course, his personal assertions carry a great deal of weight. Like myself, he has been in political life long enough to know how unexpectedly brief political office may be. We hoped that the resonant words that he expressed tonight would reflect the office holder's intention and not just his personal intention.
	In the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, I feel that I must leave the resolution of the issue until a later date. The deeper reaction to the Clementi report will of course give us much greater understanding of how to augment the protection of the independence of the judiciary. This was admittedly seen as an interim arrangement in any event. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
	Page 103, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
	"( ) In subsection (1)(c) for the words from "joint" to "State" substitute "recommendation of the Lord Chancellor".
	( ) In subsection (2) omit "and the Secretary of State"."
	Page 125, line 28, at end insert—
	"(1) Section 81 (practice directions relating to family proceedings) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), before paragraph (a) insert—
	"(za) the civil division of the Court of Appeal,
	(zb) the High Court,"."
	(3) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) Directions as to the practice and procedure of any relevant court in family proceedings (whether given under subsection (1) or otherwise) may provide for any matter which, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Procedure Act 1997, may be provided for by Civil Procedure Rules."
	(4) In subsection (3) for "magistrates' courts and county courts (or any of them)" substitute "any relevant court".
	(5) After subsection (4) (inserted by paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 2 to this Act) insert—
	"(5) In this section—
	"Civil Procedure Rules" has the same meaning as in the Civil Procedure Act 1997;
	"relevant court" means a court listed in subsection (1).""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Speakership of the House of Lords]:
	[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 96:
	After Schedule 5, insert the following new schedule—
	"PROTECTED FUNCTIONS OF THE MINISTER
	1 Any function of the Minister that relates to the custody or use of the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.
	2 Any function of the Minister under this Act.
	3 Any function of the Minister under another enactment, if the function is conferred or modified by an amendment made by this Act.
	4 Any function of the Minister under these provisions—

Sheriffs Act 1887 (c. 55)

Section 20

Law of Distress Amendment Act 1888 (c. 21)

Section 8

Stamp Act 1891 (c. 39)

Section 13A

War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act 1919 (c. 53)

The Schedule, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9

Administration of Justice Act 1925 (c. 28)

Section 22(4)

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)

Schedule 2, paragraphs 4, 5, 11, 12 and 20

Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 (c. 75)

Section 8

London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (c. xcvii)

Section 109(2)

Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 (c. 39)

The Schedule, paragraphs 2(1), 2A, 2B, 3C and 5

Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 (c. 59)

Section 61(1)
	Section 64(10)

Agriculture Act 1947 (c. 48)

Schedule 9

Commonwealth Telegraphs Act 1949 (c. 39)

1Section 6(4)

Lands Tribunal Act 1949 (c. 42)

Section 2
	Section 3

National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 (c. 93)

Section 7(6)
	Section 9(4)(a)

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (c. 97)

Section 18(3)

Foreign Compensation Act 1950 (c. 12)

Section 1(1)
	Section 4

Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 (c. 46)

Section 28
	Section 30
	Section 31(4)
	Section 32
	Section 33

Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (c. 65)

Section 5

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954 (c. 39)

Section 6(6)

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56)

Section 63(6)(c)

Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958 (c. 30)

Schedule 2, paragraphs 4(3) and (4)

Land Compensation Act 1961 (c. 33)

Section 3

Transport Act 1962 (c. 46)

Schedule 6, paragraph 3(4)

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (c. 2)

Section 29

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (1963 No. 1)

Section 2(1A)
	Section 3

Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 (c. 12)

Section 69

Commons Registration Act 1965 (c. 64)

Section 17(1) and (3)

Superannuation Act 1965 (c. 74)

Section 39A

Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 (c. 20)

Section 2
	Section 5
	Section 7(2)
	Section 30

Countryside Act 1968 (c. 41)

Section 15A(3)

Hearing Aid Council Act 1968 (c. 50)

Section 5(3)
	Section 6(4)
	Section 10(6)
	Section 13

Transport Act 1968 (c. 73)

Schedule 4, paragraph 13(3)

Taxes Management Act 1970 (c. 9)

Section 2
	Section 2A
	Section 3
	Section 3A
	Section 4(1), (3) and (6)
	Section 4A(1) and (6)
	Section 28ZC
	Section 46A
	Section 56B

Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)

Section 10(3)

Courts Act 1971 (c. 23)

Section 16(1)
	Section 18
	Section 21(2), (4) and (7)
	Section 24
	Schedule 2, paragraphs 4(3) and 9(2)

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)

Schedule 3, paragraphs 1(1), 3 and 4 and, in the table in paragraph 21, the entry for paragraph 1

Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)

Section 22

Administration of Justice Act 1973 (c. 15)

Sections 9 and 12

Juries Act 1974 (c. 23)

Section 2
	Section 3(1)
	Section 5(1)
	Section 8
	Section 19
	Section 21
	Section 23(2)

Industry Act 1975 (c. 68)

Schedule 3, paragraphs 4(1)(a) and 17

Armed Forces Act 1976 (c. 52)

Section 6(3), (4), (8) and (11)

Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 (c. 3)

Section 42
	Schedule 7, paragraph 5(1)

National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49)

Schedule 9A, paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 16 and 21

Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c. 22)

Section 2(3)

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)

Schedule 3, paragraph 17(4)

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)

Section 137
	Sections 144(2) and (3)

Judicial Pensions Act 1981 (c. 20)

Section 3
	Section 5
	Section 7
	Section 10
	Section 11
	Section 13
	Section 13A
	Section 14A
	Section 23
	Section 29B
	Section 32A
	Section 33A
	Schedule 1, paragraph 3(3)
	Schedule 1A, paragraphs 2 and 11
	Schedule 2, paragraph 2(2)

British Telecommunications Act 1981 (c. 38)

Schedule 2, paragraph 12(3)

Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)

Section 9(8)
	Section 11(7) and (8)
	Section 12
	Section 54(3)
	Section 57(4)(a)
	Section 71(4)(a)
	Section 74
	Section 75
	Section 91(6)
	Sections 92(1) and (3A)
	Section 98
	Section 102(1)
	Section 126
	Section 133
	Section 140(4)

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)

Section 28N(3)

Transport Act 1982 (c. 49)

Section 66(4)(a)

Administration of Justice Act 1982 (c. 53)

Section 25(3)(a)

Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)

Section 78
	Section 143(1)
	Schedule 2, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3

Car Tax Act 1983 (c. 53)

Section 3(5)

County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28)

Section 8(1) and (3)
	Section 12(1)
	Section 128
	Section 130

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c. 42)

Section 37

Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act 1984 (c. 59)

Schedule 1, paragraph 2(5)

Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 (c. 17)

Schedule 2, paragraph 2(1)(a)

Transport Act 1985 (c. 67)

Schedule 4, paragraphs 2(1)(a), 3(4) and (5), 6, 7, 15 and 16

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c. 70)

Section 29(4)

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (c. 5)

Schedule 11, paragraph 1(5)

Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)

Section 117
	Section 413
	Section 414(5)
	Section 415
	Section 420(1)
	Section 421(1)
	Schedule 7, paragraph 1(1)(a)

Ecclesiastical Fees Measure 1986 (1986 No. 2)

Section 4(1)(a)

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1)

Section 706(1)

Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13)

Section 17A

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)

Schedule 12

Education Reform Act 1988 (c. 40)

Schedule 10, paragraph 9(4)

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

Section 145(2)
	Section 146(6)
	Section 150
	Section 291(5)
	Section 292

Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)

Schedule 10, paragraph 9(2)(a)

Children Act 1989 (c. 41)

Section 104(1)

Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)

Schedule 9, paragraph 5(5)(a)

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)

Section 20(5)

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)

Section 1
	Section 72

Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48)

Section 8
	Section 22
	Section 24
	Section 25
	Section 52(1)
	Schedule 4, paragraphs 1(3), 2(1) and (2), 2A(1), 4(1), 4A(1) and 7

Ports Act 1991 (c. 52)

Schedule 2, paragraph 11(5)

Land Drainage Act 1991 (c. 59)

Section 31(1)

Armed Forces Act 1991 (c. 62)

Schedule 1

Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 (1991 No. 1)

Section 25(2)(a)

Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5)

Section 24
	Section 41(4)(c)
	Section 43(5)(c)
	Section 50(4)(c)
	Section 51(1)
	Section 52(2)
	Section 58
	Schedule 2, paragraph 6

Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13)

Schedule 5, paragraph 7(4)

Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 (c. 48)

Section 75

Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53)

Sections 6(2), (8) and (9)
	Section 9
	Section 13
	Section 15
	Section 16(2)
	Schedule 5, paragraph 7(4)

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8)

Section 1
	Section 2
	Section 3
	Section 9
	Section 10
	Section 11
	Section 12
	Section 13
	Section 19
	Section 20
	Section 21
	Section 26(5), (6) and (9)
	Section 31
	Schedule 2, paragraphs 2, 11, 12 and 13
	Schedule 2A, paragraphs 1 and 2
	Schedule 5, as it applies in relation to the office of chairman or other member of Rent Assessment Committees
	Schedule 7, paragraph 2

Coal Industry Act 1994 (c. 21)

Schedule 2, paragraph 8(6)(a)

Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c. 23)

Schedule 12, paragraphs 2(2) and (3), 3(2), (4), (5), (6) and (8), 4(2), 7(8) and (10), and 9

Trade Marks Act 1994 (c. 26)

Section 77

Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21)

Section 297(1)

Atomic Energy Authority Act 1995 (c. 37)

Schedule 1, paragraph 10(6)(a)

Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c. 17)

Section 3
	Section 22(1)(c) and (2)
	Section 27
	Section 30

Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c. 14)

Section 90
	Section 91

Police Act 1996 (c. 16)

Schedule 6, paragraph 1(a)

Arbitration Act 1996 (c. 23)

Section 105

Defamation Act 1996 (c. 31)

Sections 9(1)(c)

Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)

Section 119(3)

Broadcasting Act 1996 (c. 55)

Schedule 5, paragraph 8(6)(a)

Education Act 1996 (c. 56)

Section 333(3)

School Inspections Act 1996 (c. 57)

Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1)(a)

Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c. 12)

Section 3
	Section 6

Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25)

Section 10
	Section 10A(1)
	Section 10B(1)
	Section 27B
	Section 29
	Section 30
	Section 30B
	Section 30C
	Section 31
	Section 32A
	Section 34

Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 (c. 58)

Schedule 2, paragraph 11(2)

Plant Varieties Act 1997 (c. 66)

Schedule 3, paragraphs 2(1), 13 and 16

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68)

Section 5
	Section 8
	Schedule 1, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4

Social Security Act 1998 (c. 14)

Section 5(1)
	Section 6(1) to (4)
	Section 79
	Schedule 4, paragraphs 1(2), 2, 3, 6 and 8

Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)

Section 6(4)

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)

Section 51
	Section 51D
	Section 81

Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)

Schedule 4

Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Act 1999 (c. 2)

Section 13

Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14)

The Schedule, paragraphs 2(1) and (3), and 3

Finance Act 1999 (c. 16)

Schedule 17, paragraph 11

Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)

Section 189(6)

Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30)

Section 43

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33)

Section 53(6)
	Schedule 7, paragraphs 1 and 2

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c. 8)

Schedule 13, paragraphs 2, 3(1) and (4), 4, 5, 6 and 9

Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)

Schedule 3, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 (c. 19)

Schedule 7, paragraph 20

Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22)

Section 75
	Section 76(11)

International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17)

Schedule 1, paragraph 7

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24)

Schedule 6, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5

Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9)

Section 102
	Section 107(1)
	Section 114
	Schedule 9, paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 7

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (c. 15)

Schedule 12, paragraph 5(3)

Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21)

Section 65

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)

Section 320(3)(b)

Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)

Section 12(2)(a) and (b)
	Section 16
	Schedule 2, paragraphs 1 and 3

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41)

Section 16
	Section 81
	Section 106
	Schedule 4, paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7
	Schedule 5, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11

Finance Act 2003 (c. 14)

Schedule 17, paragraphs 6 to 10

Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)

Schedule 2, paragraph 4(7)(a)

Courts Act 2003 (c. 39)

Section 1
	Section 22(1)
	Section 27
	Section 35
	Section 36
	Section 37
	Section 51
	Section 61
	Schedule 1, paragraphs 2 and 6
	Schedule 5, paragraphs 43
	Schedule 6, paragraph 1
	Schedule 7, paragraphs 2 and 12

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)

Section 168(4)
	Section 169
	Section 170
	Section 171
	Section 173"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 6 [Supreme Court Selection Commissions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 97 to 145 not moved.]
	Schedule 7 [Amendments Relating to Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court]:
	[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
	Schedule 8 [Proceedings Under Jurisdiction Transferred to Supreme Court]:
	[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
	Schedule 9 [The Judicial Appointments Commission]:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: moved Amendment No. 148:
	Page 181, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) The function of making the selection of a puisne judge of the High Court under this Part of this Act may be delegated only to a committee of at least five members whose members include two of the Commissioners qualified for appointment by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2(3)."

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I will be brief. This amendment was to have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I hope that it is in order for me to say how concerned I was to hear that he had been taken ill.
	The purpose of the amendment is to provide a panel for selecting puisne judges. I am glad to see that puisne judges have been removed from Schedule 11, where they have been tucked away for too long. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was sympathetic to the amendment that I moved on Report, but he thought that I had gone about it in the wrong way. Afterwards, he volunteered to draft an amendment that would produce the result that I was seeking to achieve; he has done that. The effect is that there would be a panel of the Judicial Appointments Commission consisting of five members, two of whom would be senior judges, one puisne judge, and one a member of the Court of Appeal. I am entirely happy with that approach to that problem, which does exist.
	I have reason to suppose that a panel of five composed in that way would be acceptable to the Lord Chief Justice. I hope that in this season of goodwill it will be acceptable to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I can see no reason why that sensibly made-up panel should not be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, as a preamble, it gives me enormous pleasure to find myself at this stage in the proceedings of the Bill in entire agreement with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Although it may be surprising, it is enormously satisfying to see our names jointly on an amendment. I hope that that concatenation may fortify the case that has been made by the noble and learned Lord. He has been right all along to identify the appointment of High Court judges as being among the most important functions of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
	He has deployed entirely the arguments that I would have done, and I see no reason at this hour to hold up the House by any repetition. If the Government accept the amendment, they will meet the concerns that were expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart, which were slightly different when deployed on Report. This panel arrangement, constructed as proposed, would meet the concerns of both.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I spoke on Report to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his amendment. I elide into the concatenation to which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, referred, and I support the amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am thrilled by the uncharacteristic relationships that have emerged from all of this. I have some sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said, but it would be inappropriate to put it in the Bill. The right moment at which to consider this is the time at which guidance is produced by the Lord Chancellor, who would have had the opportunity to discuss the right course with the appointments commission.
	It would be wrong to place in the Bill provisions relating to appointments as important as the High Court that in effect tie the commission's hands for ever. The guidance that the Lord Chancellor produces is subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses, so there will be an opportunity to debate it then. So, I have sympathy, but this should not be in the Bill.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I cannot help being disappointed with that. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that with an appointment so important as a High Court judge it is not necessary to put it in the Bill. Precisely the contrary; it is because it is such an important appointment that it should be in the Bill, just as is the appointment panel for Lord Justices, and so on. I cannot help but be disappointed by that; and I hope that he will think again, if necessary in collaboration with the Lord Chief Justice, and put it in the Bill where it belongs. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
	Schedule 11 [The Judicial Appointments Commission: Relevant Offices and Enactments]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendments Nos. 150 and 151:
	Page 192, line 20, column 1, leave out "(Magistrate's Courts)" and insert "(Chief Magistrate)"
	Page 192, line 23, column 1, leave out "(Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "(Chief Magistrate)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
	Schedule 12 [Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]:
	[Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 not moved.]
	Schedule 13 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
	[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
	Schedule 14 [Repeals and Revocations]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendments Nos. 156 and 157:
	Page 207, leave out lines 11 to 16.
	Page 208, line 36, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "County Courts Act 1984(c. 28) Section 74A." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 158:
	Page 212, line 5, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Access to Justice Act 1999(c. 22) In Schedule 2, paragraph2(1)(b)."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the amendments make provision that is purely consequential on the transfer to the Supreme Court of the devolution jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Each of them adds an entry to Schedule 15 to repeal a reference to the devolution jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee, which will become otiose as a result of the transfer of that jurisdiction. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 159:
	Page 212, line 9, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Access to Justice (NorthernIreland) Order 2003(S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)) In Schedule 2, paragraph2(a)(ii)." 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
	An amendment (privilege) made.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Religious Attitudes

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the international situation, what steps they are taking to support enlightened religious attitudes in the United Kingdom and overseas.
	My Lords, for some time, President Musharraf of Pakistan has been calling for policies of enlightened moderation, both within the Muslim world and in the response of the rest of the world to Islam. There is thus an element of reciprocity in his call. An example of that is the recent exchange between the European Union and Turkey. The EU and others have long been encouraging Turkey towards a greater respect for fundamental human freedoms, including religious freedom. Turkey's positive moves in that direction have enabled the beginning of talks on accession.
	Reciprocity is not tit for tat. It is about the identification of common values, even if they have origins in different belief and cultural systems, for the sake of the peace and good will that is a seasonal theme at this time. For people of faith, it means a commitment to fundamental freedoms in every part of the world. It is because I have experience of difficulties in building churches in parts of the Muslim world that I support the rights of Muslims and others to places of worship in this country.
	Enlightened religious attitudes raise the question of the relation of religion to the state. Religious ideas have often under-girded theories of state and of polity. Today, some still hold that a religion should have coercive power in the governance and law-making of a state. The polity, if not always the practice, of post-revolution Iran is based on that assumption, and is at the root of the inability of that country to move towards reform. Some years ago, I engaged in fruitful dialogue with the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Pakistan, Dr Nasim Hasan Shah. Dr Shah was quite clear that the role of an Islamic state was not coercive but persuasive. It should enable Muslims to be good Muslims, but no one should be compelled to act against their conscience.
	Islam is not necessarily theocratic. In fact, those who have championed theocracy, like the Kharijites, have often found themselves on the margins. There have been important intermediate institutions in Islamic polity, such as the Caliphate itself, jurists, the courts of rulers and the Sufi orders. In addition, there are strong traditions of government by consent, both Islamic and customary. If President Musharraf's programme is to succeed, it is vital that civil society is strengthened and the voluntary sector is encouraged to contribute to policy-making, especially in the areas of welfare, human rights and legal reform.
	That brings me to religion and law. This relationship, as the one between morals and law, is not a simple one. Religious ideas about the nature of the world, the dignity, freedom and stewardship of human beings, as well as the common good, often underlie moral attitudes and those, in turn, have influenced the development of law, even secular law. Three points need to be made. First, moral awareness is not limited to religious people. People of no faith may be morally more aware than those who belong to a faith but, secondly, religions have often articulated and formalised moral codes—such as the Ten Commandments—by which generations have ordered their lives. Thirdly, if law is to be effective, it must have moral and not merely coercive force, and must be able to appeal to moral tradition.
	In the context of Islam, that means that the interpretations, codifications and implementation of the Sharia by the classical schools of law—the madha'ib—will have to be revisited. Muslims regard the Sharia as the way of God for them. Christians also see themselves as followers of the way. The question is whether their devotion to the way can be expressed in terms of law which takes account of particular circumstances and changes in human understanding about, for example, penal law. There is a long tradition in Islamic law of ijtihad—of jurists going to the sources of law and relating them to the present situation—and of Maslaha, which is the necessity of taking account of the common good. If enlightened moderation is to make its mark, Islamic jurists will need to apply those principles to urgent issues such as apostasy and blasphemy, the legal and social position of women and the status of religious minorities. I am glad that some of those are being addressed in Pakistan and look forward to further developments.
	Both Christianity and Islam have traditions about the justifiability or not of armed conflict. As Christians consider afresh how "just war" theory may work in a world where there is terrorism and a host of unconventional wars, it is particularly important that the Islamic tradition of jihad is not hijacked by extremists. Jihad can certainly be understood spiritually or as a struggle against social injustice but, where it relates to armed conflict, it can be thought of as either an aggressive war against the infidel or a defensive war when Islam is seen to be in danger. In the past 200 years, most mainstream Islamic thought has understood it in the latter sense. Some urgent dialogue needs to take place between Muslims and Christians on when armed conflict might be justifiable. Any convergence on the issue would be a huge resource for the international community.
	The ideologues of terrorism are not from the poor. They are from the technocrats and the new business "elite" but, of course, they use the poor. That is seen starkly in the madrassas strung along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where children, sent by parents who could not afford any other kind of education, were radicalised and made fodder for the Taliban. The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the international community must not allow that to happen again. Widening the curriculum in the madrassas, diversifying educational opportunities for the poor and creating employment through micro-enterprise, as well as fiscal and governance reform which allows such issues to be addressed, are not only national but global responsibilities.
	Finally, it is very important to keep the world in motion. We should not lightly accept a world where travel is a doddle for some and well nigh impossible for others. There is no surer way of kindling resentment against those seen as privileged. That has implications for policy on tourism, work permits and family visits, but I wish to focus on programmes of exchange. I am glad that in this country they are now being widened to include culture, history and religion. We cannot put all our eggs into the science and technology basket, especially as that has been shown to be morally neutral at best. Let us encourage exchange in all directions, so that people come to encounter the beliefs, values and customs of others. Those are what really matter and it is better appreciation of them which will move us closer to the enduring peace which we all desire, especially at this time of Christmas.
	Seeing that I have a minute or two left, I want to urge the Government to consider allotting a longer time for a debate of this kind so that the views of the House and the expertise available in the House can truly be taken into account.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as we now have 90 minutes for this Unstarred Question, noble Lords may speak for five minutes rather than the recommended two.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to thank the right reverend Prelate for having chosen this subject tonight—an altogether fitting subject for the run-up to Christmas.
	It has always struck me that there are two wonders of the creation. The first is its diversity and the second is its complexity. I believe that we must learn how to celebrate the first and recognise and enjoy the stimulus of the second. But against those wonders, the overriding challenges in the millennium ahead will be exclusion and the growing gap between rich and poor and the economic and political systems which emerge without ethical context.
	On the second issue of absence of ethical context, I tremble at what is happening in Russia. I believe that the whole world has a responsibility for the course that Russia has taken. Russia seems to have embraced the cause of economic liberalism without having recognised that Adam Smith brought forward his ideas with a deep commitment to ethics and principle. An economic machine without such an ethical context can become a nightmare. All these issues are related to global terrorism and the necessity of winning hearts and minds.
	I believe that enlightened religion can play an important part in providing an ethical context and in overcoming exclusion. The major faiths have much in common to share in that task: love; charity; social responsibility and commitment. Noble Lords will forgive me for drawing on my past experience, but I spent half my life working in humanitarian agencies. I have always been impressed by the degree to which humanitarian work of the principal faiths is in the front line where the going is toughest. I think of Islamic Aid, of Jewish Relief, of the Aga Khan Foundation, of Christian Aid and of CAFOD. I wonder whether it would be possible for those organisations to get together and run a common programme and some joint projects. That would be a wonderful challenge and model for the rest of the world.
	The right reverend Prelate—I nearly said my noble friend, which he is in many ways—has spoken about the challenges to Islam. I hope he will forgive me if I say as a Christian that we must face some of the challenges to Christianity. It is time that some of us who profess to be Christians spoke out in unqualified terms about how we see much that is being said and done in the name of Christianity as the antithesis of all that holds us to the Christian faith. What matters to me and to many other Christians is the context of love and openness and inclusion. This language of good and evil and exclusion is not what we believe our religion is about. We must put our own house firmly in order in that context.
	Furthermore, in reflecting on the challenges and travails of the growing up of one's own family—one must face these issues in real terms—when considering truth the analogy of the mountain is a good one. Truth is a mountain whose summit has not yet been reached. Many of us hope that we are climbing that mountain and have chosen a route that suits us. But as we climb, we must remember that others are climbing at the same time on routes they have chosen and that their routes are every bit as valid and important as ours. Truth is somewhere there at the summit and we should all be striving to reach it.
	Finally, for the past 10 years I have been privileged to be honorary president of the YMCA in England and I have learnt a great deal. When I took on the task, I was a little fearful that I was not evangelical by temperament. However, I discovered that in that organisation many deeply sincere evangelicals do not see their task as winning a battle for Christianity—winning souls for Christianity—but that their faith demands of them social engagement in the front line of the social challenges that face us. That is the essential message in my own religion to which we must all return with urgency.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating such an important debate. His Question asks Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to help enlightened religious attitudes. I do not believe that making a crime of incitement to religious hatred will be a step towards enlightened attitudes. I believe that it will threaten the open and free debate on which religious tolerance has long been built.
	We in this country have seen not only the appalling rise of anti-Semitism, but also since 9/11 the vicious and appalling verbal attacks on the Islamic faith by extreme groups such as the BNP. But we should not forget that we are also seeing an attack on Christianity much more by the politically correct who seem to fail to understand the deep sense of national identity which is bound up with the Christian tradition in the United Kingdom.
	I want briefly to describe an experience of tremendous light and hope in religious enlightenment and tolerance in an organisation of which I am most honoured to be a patron. It concerns a village in the heart of the Arab/Israeli conflict, in Israel itself, a village called Neve Shalom Wahat al-Salem—NSWaS, as we call it for short. It was founded by a Dominican as an oasis of peace, which is what its name in both Arabic and Hebrew means, in the very midst of the worst of the conflict around 1970.
	In this village, 50 families, approximately half Jewish and half Arab, live together. They are all Israeli citizens. They are all working together and running the village together. Some 300 families are now on a waiting list to come and join them. There is neither political nor religious affiliation in the village. The fundamental principle is that each person should know their own religious and cultural identity and understand and respect that of others.
	The village has no synagogue, church or mosque, but a House of Silence where each faith can conduct its own meditation and prayer. The Spiritual Centre, shared by all, conducts seminars to study religious texts and traditions. But for me the most inspiring part of the entire experience is the school, which runs from kindergarten through primary. The teaching and administration are shared equally by Jews and Arabs. The teaching is in both Hebrew and Arabic so that all the children attending—90 per cent of whom come from surrounding villages—become bilingual and therefore able to communicate freely and openly with each other.
	The School for Peace, which is where Jewish and Arab high school students come to the village for an intensive three-day dialogue, has done pioneering work with young people and adults from the two communities, helping them to understand the roots of their conflict and, most importantly, the ways towards resolution, dialogue and peace.
	One British visitor observing such an encounter from behind the one-way window in the newly built classroom describes her experience thus:
	"The young people came in and sat in heavy silence. There was antagonism we felt. The teachers worked hard at getting them to talk. More silence. Then suddenly one young person broke it and the discussion flowed and warmed and continued throughout the day, so much so—they were all staying overnight—that at 2 a.m. these young people were roaring round the compound together shrieking with laughter and we sleepless older guests chalked this up to huge success".
	The initiative that NSWaS has so successfully pioneered in Israel is an example of how enlightened religious attitudes can be fostered even in the most difficult of times and places. Most particularly, it shows that if the young are brought together and allowed to get to know each other as real people and as faces then all that antagonism and hostility can go and the more enlightened religious attitudes can be built.
	I commend the initiative not only to the Government but more specifically to the Department for Education as the kind of programme which in very different circumstances we could well adopt in this country to bring about the enlightened religious attitudes we all seek.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I should like to thank not only the right reverend Prelate but also the government Whips, for giving us a little more time, and echo his call that we should have a fuller debate on this extremely important issue. We cannot, after all, separate politics entirely from religion. We are learning that in the Middle East at present. We cannot separate society entirely from religion. The moral and ethical dimension in politics and in social relations are built on past religion. I am very conscious that my own party grew out of the nonconformist Churches and their deep commitment to individual liberty and to equality and to work both of those together.
	We face at present the twin dangers of empty secularism and of fundamentalism—of those who worship on Sunday mornings at Ikea or Asda, and those who reject the modern world completely and with it the toleration and the open society that are part of the modern world. I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that what we currently see in the United States—particularly in the pre-millennial dimensions of the Southern Baptists and the insistence that it is good versus evil and there is nowhere in between—is extremely dangerous. As Christians we should be saying very vigorously, as I assure you I do whenever I go to the United States, that that is not the sort of faith that we understand or with which we have any sympathy.
	Let us also be aware that there is Jewish fundamentalism and Hindu fundamentalism as well as Muslim fundamentalism, which is a crabbed and intolerant version of Islam. Thankfully that is not the whole of Islam, no more than the Southern Baptist Convention or the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster are in the mainstream of Christianity, thank God. The theology of hatred, exclusion and fear is, of course, closely linked to the politics of fear from which the United States now suffers.
	What do we want the Government to do? I believe we want the Government, in their teaching in the national syllabus, to impart much more of a sense of history and of comparative religions, to impart the sympathy of the different paths to God, and to impart our understanding of history in which the darker sides of the Christian past and some of the more glorious parts of the Muslim past are included.
	I am rather fed up with meeting Christians who assume that Christians never slaughtered each other, who assume that we were never intolerant of each other and who seem to have forgotten that Christians used to insist that our women covered their heads. My mother never went out without putting on a headscarf. I do not believe she remembered that that was originally a religious custom. Now that we have all forgotten that, we attack our Muslim friends for being a couple of generations behind us. Muslim civilisation at its greatest period had a great deal to offer the world and at that time it was much more tolerant than most Christian civilisations were.
	In June, I am due to give a paper to a conference— the Archbishops' Council of the Church of England and the Bishops' Conference of the Catholic Church— on "Just War". Listening to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, it struck me that perhaps we should invite Jewish and Muslim contributions as they also have traditions of a just war with which it would be useful to compare.
	The most important thing is to include Islam more clearly among British religions. On Friday evening, I had a very interesting conversation with a British Muslim who said, "I feel myself to be British and I am also a Muslim". He was talking about the need to have proper training for imams in British universities. I believe that the Government should certainly consider whether in our theological faculties in the major British universities we fully include Islam as one of the three religions that come from Abraham. There is nothing worse than that dreadful term "Judaeo-Christian" which excludes Islam and pretends that only two of the religions of the Book are worth having.
	I have one final comment and a compliment. Fifty years ago I sang at the Coronation, a deeply Protestant ceremony in which the Moderator of the Church of Scotland was the only person who participated in the service who was not in the Church of England. Last year, I went to the 50th anniversary service at which the Cardinal Archbishop read a lesson with the Orthodox Archbishop standing behind him and under the transept sitting below them were representatives of the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai and Zoroastrian faiths—I did not know we have an organised Zoroastrian faith in Britain—as part of a celebration of what it means to belong to British society, to the British community and to have a relationship with the British state. We need that and the Government should encourage it.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, a measure of the importance of this debate is that it has attracted so many speakers, and at this time of night. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester will return to this topic on another occasion, hopefully when we have a little more time. However, we have each been given five minutes to speak instead of two, so I shall enlarge my modest contribution.
	When I was chosen as Speaker in 1983, I inherited from Speaker Thomas the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. I well remember my initial address to the Christian wives fellowship when I said, "There are many roads to God". I saw pursed lips and at the end of my address someone came up to me and said, "Many roads to God, Mr Speaker? Only one". I said, "Not if you were in the Indian Army".
	Some noble Lords may know that I had the privilege of serving for five of the most formative years of my life with Indian troops. We had a squadron of Sikhs and I fully understand and appreciate the Sikh community's distress and anger about the play being performed in Birmingham which I hope has been stopped. We had a squadron of PMs—Punjab Mussulmen—and we had a squadron of Javs—Hindus. Despite religious backgrounds, all worked in the closest harmony and all were volunteers. I mention that because it is a small but practical example of what can be achieved with the right leadership in calling those of different faiths to work closely together.
	I had the privilege of representing Croydon North-East for 28 years. There are few more diverse communities in our country than Croydon. Very few people will know that Addiscombe, in the heart of my old constituency, had been the training college of the Honourable East India Company from 1700 to 1850. So we have very close contacts with the Indian sub-continent. Perhaps because we have Lunar House in the constituency, we have diverse other races and religions.
	In my time I was able to support the building of the local mosque by raising substantial sums of money for it. It is a flourishing mosque today. We established a gurdwara for the Sikhs; and we obtained a redundant church for the Jains. There is an important and large parish church in Croydon. Through Canon Colin Boswell and his predecessor Canon Colin Hill, there were few community problems in Croydon.
	My second point reinforces the matter touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I believe that the only way to overcome and to defeat terrorism is to transform the conditions in which it flourishes. I refer to the dangerous disparity between rich and poor nations. It is a horrific statistic that more people have died of hunger in the past year than were killed in World War I and World War II. We have an urgent and absolute duty to redress the imbalance between rich and poor countries in our world.
	Debates of this kind are of course to be welcomed, but we need practical action as well. I commend to your Lordships an old Punjabi truth:
	"Good words will earn you honour in the marketplace, but good deeds will win you friends amongst men".
	In relation to this debate that is peace in our world.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate for initiating this fascinating debate. Whenever we talk about religion, we need to bear two things in mind. First, every religion has two opposite tendencies. Religion is dogmatic and is bound to remain so because it believes that God's will is revealed in scriptures that human reason is not at liberty to alter. Therefore, every religion has a built-in dogmatic tendency.
	Secondly, no human being lives by religion alone. Human beings are endowed with reason, which itself is a God-given faculty, and they have a responsibility to account to others what use they make of that reason. Every religion therefore is caught up in an interesting paradox: having to choose between faith and reason. But since it cannot choose and as both are important, it has to find a way of combining faith and reason.
	I say that because it is important to bear it in mind that no religion is inherently peaceful or inherently militant, inherently violent or inherently non-violent. It has impulses that push in both directions and which way it turns depends on the historical and social forces surrounding it.
	The question therefore before us is: if a religion has a tendency to be open-ended, to be a religion of love, as well as a tendency to be an instrument of war, and militancy, what should we do, so that religion's positive tendencies are fully exploited and its negative tendencies are countered? That raises an important question that I want to address. Under what historical or social conditions does a religion tend to become militant and fundamentalist? Once we identify those conditions, it becomes easier for us to address them and to develop an enlightened religious attitude.
	I suggest that there are four conditions under which a religion's militant tendencies—or what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, called fundamentalist tendencies—become manifest and get exploited. First, they appear when injustice is operating in society and no institutions, associations or political parties are available to fight it, so that people are forced to turn to religious organisations to do the job that political and civic organisations should be doing. The second condition is where religion is an all-pervasive presence that dominates society and there are no alternative, secular cultures to check it. Then, religion has a tendency to hijack the entire social fabric because it is not checked. The third is when there is no freedom of expression and therefore no opportunity to examine religion critically and to challenge and debate the various interpretations. Finally, when a society feels besieged, frightened and fearful of losing its identity and integrity, it tends to turn to what it calls non-negotiable fundamentals in the hope that they will be the anchor that will allow it to navigate its way through difficult times. Here the West has much to answer for.
	Western policies have often humiliated other societies, tried to mould them in their own image, imposed their values on them and manipulated them, as a result of which those societies have felt threatened, besieged and inevitably drawn to the power and pressure of religion. What do we do about that? Each religious community must obviously fight its own fundamentalist tendencies; it cannot be done by outsiders. But outsiders can help in a variety of ways; I wish to suggest three.
	First, we should resist the temptation to try to mould other societies in our image. Whether it is a question of exporting democracy in a missionary spirit, exporting capitalism or liberalism, we should show some humility in recognising that other civilisations might have their own values from which they would benefit far more than any export that we might make. Secondly, we must do everything that we can to foster civil society and a regime of basic human rights, so that there is freedom of expression and excesses of religion can be challenged. Finally, we must enter into sympathetic dialogue with other societies and civilisations to understand their deepest concerns and anxieties.
	In that context, I wish briefly to show how a dialogue can proceed and achieve wonderful results. A few months ago, I wrote a piece in which I tried to explore a dialogue between Mahatma Gandhi and Osama bin Laden, both religious people, each trying to understand the world from a religious point of view. I was able to show that in spite of their differences there is a common ground. I was pleased to hear that not only the Gandhians but many of my Muslim friends are also beginning to understand how the world looks at them and the direction in which they need to change.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for initiating the debate. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Multifaith Secondary School Educational Trust, which was founded by a rabbi colleague of mine and has been supported since its inception by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, Dr Zaki Badawi of the Muslim College, known to many noble Lords, Deva Samaroo, of the London Borough of Brent, and many others. I propose to speak about multi-faith education in the UK.
	Despite their support of single-faith schools, the Government have been lukewarm in their support of this initiative thus far. There have been various attempts to find locations for such a school where local education authorities have been less than enthusiastic. There is confusion on the part of local education authorities between secular, non-denominational schools, which they mistakenly regard as multi-faith, and a multi-faith school, where faith is taken seriously and pupils learn about their own faiths and each other's. In such a school, Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus, for example, study their own faith and each other's, their own moral values and each other's, and critique literature and history through the eyes of each other's cultural and religious experience.
	That is very different from a non-denominational school. The pupils would be asked to use their friendships and shared experiences to understand other people's points of view. Just as integrated education in Northern Ireland tries to tackle stereotyping and unfair prejudice, so a multi-faith school in England would tackle intolerance and promote enlightened religious attitudes.
	For that to happen, the Government need to send out supportive signals. They need to encourage local education authorities to explore multi-faith education that is genuinely faith-based. They need to encourage multi-faith city academies, where societal gain would be vast, even where it is hard to raise the initial funding. They need to state that they support multi-faith education as a key component of the educational offering available in the United Kingdom. That would truly support enlightened religious attitudes in the UK.
	I very much hope therefore that the Government will see their way to giving serious encouragement and funding to multi-faith schools. I hope too that they will see them as a way of tackling rising religious intolerance, which is experienced particularly by Muslims but also by other religious groups, including my own.
	I hope that the Government will see that other multi-faith activities, such as the North London Hospice, the Maimonides Foundation, the Council of Christians and Jews, the Three Faiths Forum and many others, need cherishing and encouraging. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I believe that many single-faith aid organisations would do well to work together, and all sorts of other organisations to boot. Of them all, schools are the most important, and our young are the key to a tolerant, inclusive society.
	When I trained to be a rabbi many years ago, I learnt to preach from the then head of Westcott House, Mark Santer, who was later Bishop of Birmingham. Rabbinic students at Leo Baeck College, where I trained and later taught, study briefly at the Muslim College. Muslim and Christian students spend a Jewish Sabbath with students from Leo Baeck College and surrounding families.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, spoke movingly of Neve Shalom—Wahat al-Salam in Israel. My son was a volunteer there in his gap year, and a wonderful place it is. But we need many more such endeavours, especially for the young, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said. I urge the Government to support such projects in the UK and abroad, to support multi-faith schools, and, as my noble friend Lord Wallace has said, to encourage our universities and theological faculties to include Muslims and Islamic teaching alongside Christianity, Judaism and other faiths. Inclusion and tolerance, rather than legislation against incitement to religious hatred, are vital for all religious groups to feel a part of our society.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverent Prelate for initiating this very important and timely debate. Although enlightened moderation and religious teachings have become quite a fashionable sound-bite for many leaders, diplomats and politicians these days, I hope that we genuinely want to discuss important issues surrounding this topic and issues that incite hate and violence, including controversial writings, such as articles, plays and international events—for example, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir—that lead to extreme and violent reactions.
	The play shown in the Midlands recently that provoked a violent demonstration by the Seikh communities, the play in Scotland which depicted Jesus Christ as a homosexual or the Koranic verses that were written on a woman's naked body were deliberately designed to provoke a reaction from the ordinary, peace- loving Seikh, Christian or Muslim. In a free and democratic society, I am totally committed to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, that has to be balanced with responsibility.
	We all know that journalists, reporters and writers sometimes sensationalise headlines to sell newspapers and sometimes write deliberately derogatory columns that are abusive, insulting and incite hatred, such as the one that was published recently in the Daily Telegraph. Although I condemn violence and physical attacks by any individual or group, I can understand the feelings of the Seikh community of objecting strongly to the notion that a place of worship, like the Gurdawara, is depicted as a place where sex, homosexuality and violence occurs and therefore becomes a behazati (dishonour) and offensive. Naturally, there will be a reaction from those communities.
	Although my religion of Islam has time after time ordered the Muslims to adopt a middle way, Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the world today, which is why sometimes one will see that extremism and terrorism have become interchangeable with the peaceful religion of Islam. Tonight, the right reverend Prelate concentrated on Islam and Pakistan, but I am sorry that America and the Christian right have not been mentioned. I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, with which I totally agree.
	The Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Him, said that the middle course is the best course of action. The Koran says:
	"We will you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with your example) you might bear witness before all mankind".
	However, there are many reasons for the unrest in and reactions of the Muslim community today. Some relate to poverty, illiteracy, lack of democracy and dictatorships, the abuse of human rights and the struggle for the right of self determination. Others relate to the continued suffering of the Palestinian and Kashmiri people; the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad and the destruction of Fallujah; while the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib provided an incentive for some to recruit young people to fight in the name of religion.
	I do not need to mention that Islam has the most modern values. The Constitution of Medina was agreed 1,400 years ago. A justice system was established and I believe that today's British jury system is based on the Islamic system of justice. Turning to rights and responsibilities, I refer to human rights and women's rights—I remind the House that the wife of the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Him, was an entrepreneur and businesswoman who traded in those days. I refer to animal rights as well.
	The Koran says,
	"ridicule not other people's objects of worship lest they ridicule your God".
	The teachings of Islam, along with other religions, preach tolerance, coexistence and love for others.
	The men who murdered Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister Rabin and Lord Mountbatten and his wife, and the men who carried out the massacre at Srebrenica and the attack on the twin towers may all have given the impression that they committed those crimes in the name of religion. But I believe that political ideologies and political extremism also play a part.
	Enlightened moderation should not mean diluting the fundamental beliefs or attempting to change the basic principles of any religion. I believe that the state should not impose a particular type of religious education, like in the Netherlands or France, but should first deal with the injustices in our society of racism, Islamophobia, unemployment and deprivation. We must engage with young people who feel alienated and reach out to the disaffected.
	Finally, London has 13 major world religions and over 270 languages are spoken. Yet thank God we have a peaceful city in which everyone can coexist.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and to have listened to all those who have spoken in this most interesting debate.
	I grew up in the Church of Scotland, a Presbyterian church, and in my adolescence was much influenced by the Iona Community and its attempts at a social gospel. I remain a relatively enthusiastic churchgoer in Clackmannan.
	I have already mentioned my next point to the right reverend Prelate. I was attracted to the title of this Unstarred Question as it is constitutionally incorrect: religion, blasphemy and religious hatred are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We will have to act as though a Sewel Motion has been passed, thus allowing the debate to touch on Scottish matters. I should also remind the House that sovereignty was returned to the Church of Scotland in 1932 by an Act of this Parliament.
	That said, there is no doubt that, in part, central Scotland wallows in bigotry, which is certainly bigger than racialism in the central Scottish psyche. It is, of course, a relic of 19th century immigration or return from Ireland. This inter-denominational bigotry is supported and fuelled not only by Rangers and Celtic, but also by the continuance on the statute book of the Act of Settlement 1701, a pre-Union Act passed by this Parliament when it was the parliament of England and Wales. It was only relevant to deal with James Francis Edward Stuart, who should have inherited the English and Welsh throne in that year.
	Since I am having a go at this Parliament, why not have a go at the Scottish Parliament as well? It is for the Scottish Parliament to repeal the Education (Scotland) Act 1918, which created denominational schools paid for by the state, thereby continuing the Protestant/Catholic divide.
	I presume that an enlightened religious attitude is a tolerant attitude. One should meet other religions or denominations on the basis that they may be right—after all, who knows? However, I draw the line at tolerating religions or religious sects which preach physical harm or death to non-believers.
	The one point I wish to make is that there is a need for heresy and heretics to be identified so that everyone can come to know whether and how a heretical view diverges from the orthodox view. There is a need for boldness from mainstream religious leaders, whether it is an Islamic sect, the Order of Hibernians or the Orange Order that we are considering.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for being absent when he opened the debate. This was due to confusion in the advice I was given about when the end of the day's business would be. As a result, I listened to the speech of the right reverend Prelate on the television.
	I acknowledge all the positive observations made by the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords who have spoken. I shall focus on what I believe is important—that is, the need to inform people in the community, particularly those who provide services in both the public and private sectors, about the cultural and religious beliefs prevalent in our population. I have been doing this—I declare an interest—since the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 was passed and after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry in 1999.
	I have three proposals in regard to the way forward. First, we need to maintain enlightened religious attitudes in the UK, finding a delicate balance between our freedom of expression and respect for the beliefs and views of other people in the community. We need systematically to inform people about cultures and religions. This can be done through a number of media: electronic means, the printed word and seminars. Over the past five years, I have found that this has given people, particularly from the majority population, confidence in their dealings with people from diverse backgrounds.
	Secondly, we need publicly to explore the balance between freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs. The danger of upsetting some religious communities would be reduced if discussion took place between people who hold specific religious beliefs and those with other values and beliefs. This has been taking place on Merseyside. I am personally involved where groups of people meet together in order to understand each others' religions. This mirrors the school curriculum to which the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, referred.
	Thirdly, more discussions and consultation should be encouraged to take place between and among people more openly in order to find out more about their religious beliefs and their views of the world. If these measures were implemented, there would be no need to initiate legislation about incitement to religious hatred. Such legislation would do more harm than good.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it in so many different ways.
	For many people, their religious faith is the central factor in their lives. For many millions of people, their faith is far more important than their politics. For many people, in certain circumstances, that faith is the only thing that they have. I think of the Jewish people, who were turned out of Jerusalem in 72 AD, and who for 18 centuries were without a place to call their own. They suffered pogroms and the devastation of the Holocaust, which was the climax of everything. I believe that the only thing that held them together was their religious faith. So when we talk of faith, we are talking of something that is central to the lives of many people.
	We might not agree with the convictions that people hold, but that faith must be respected every time. We might disagree on principles or attitudes, but we must say that we will get to a personal understanding of other people. An attempt at respect, understanding and tolerance are much more likely to win hearts and minds than suspicion and hostility. In the United Kingdom and many other countries, we have seen how people of different faiths are getting together. They are talking together and are beginning to understand one another. I well remember the first anniversary of September 11 in my own town of Llandudno. We are not a large multicultural community, but people came from the mosque, the synagogue and all the Christian Churches. Together we remembered and wept. Together we begin to understand one another and, in that understanding, we begin to overcome our differences.
	Noble Lords can possibly tell that I am Welsh. There was a time when people would ask the denomination to which one belonged. If one said, "I am a Methodist", the next question would be whether one was a Wesleyan Methodist or a Calvinistic Methodist. It was vitally important. Over the years, attitudes have changed. As people get to know and respect each other, there will be much greater tolerance and understanding. That is the major direction in which I want to go this evening. It is that we should respect each other and learn so that when new, often frightened, people come to our country, we are able to give them a welcome and to embrace them at the heart of their faith, which is those things that are important for them.
	I am a great believer in the United Nations. There I see more than 190 nations coming together and talking. There are massive disagreements between some of them, but they keep on talking. As they keep on talking, perhaps they begin to understand and tolerate. Instead of war and hostility, there is talking and a search for understanding. The world is a much safer place because there is a United Nations, although the UN has to be modernised and there are many changes to be made.
	I sometimes wonder whether we could think of a united nations of the faiths of the world, a continuing, consistent gathering together of people of different faiths so that they could share their concerns and air their differences. They might not all agree. Perhaps not every faith would come. Is there not a possibility that, by talking together on a world level, we might be able to avoid so much of the horror of the past? I would like to see that happen but at least I am allowed to dream about it.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I wish to contribute briefly to this debate and I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating it. I am sorry I was not here for his introductory speech, and that I did not hear it on television.
	As someone with a Scottish background, and therefore Presbyterian, living in Ireland, I am very conversant with the problems we have in the island of Ireland. As I have said before, that island was called Scotia in Roman times, and then the Irish invaded it and drove the Scotis out. We were sent across to a place which we then called Scotland, taking its name from the Scotis who lived in Scotia. The Irish took over, and our island was renamed Hibernia. Then in the 17th century the Scots returned to Northern Ireland. My family returned from Scotland to Kilclooney, hence my title.
	The Irish Presbyterian Church is the largest Protestant Church in Northern Ireland. The Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland is even larger. Our task in that divided society is for members of the Protestant and the Roman Catholic communities to live and work together for the good of Northern Ireland. I say that as a member of the Orange Institution; as one who believes that one renders unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. I say that as one who believes in freedom of religion for everyone.
	I wish to touch on one subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, seemed to be giving her assent to the suggestion that state finance should be withdrawn from Church schools and that we should solely support integrated or mixed-religion schools. I disagree with that totally, as an Ulster Presbyterian. We have a wonderful education system in Northern Ireland, controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and financed 100 per cent by the state.
	It is quite wrong that parents should not have the freedom of choice to send their children to a Roman Catholic, a Muslim, a Jewish or an integrated school. I would defend the right of the Churches in England—where, surprisingly, I find from the recent census, 75 per cent of the people are Christian, although I have not experienced that in my visits to England—to have the right to have their own schools. The state should not discriminate against religions and simply favour integrated education. I just wanted to make that brief comment, as an Ulster Protestant supporting Roman Catholic schools in Northern Ireland.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we come to the concluding part of this important debate. I add my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for securing the debate.
	When I first came to this country in the late 1950s, it was said that the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. I remember my very first meeting with the local vicar in Brighton, who asked me whether I was a Catholic or a Protestant. My reply was, "It's bad enough being an immigrant without being one of those things". Things have changed a lot since then.
	I hope that the enlightened religious attitude that we are talking about will stretch to House of Lords reform, so that before long we can see on the Bishops' Benches people of other faiths.
	Next Saturday we celebrate Christmas; last month we celebrated the festivals of Eid and of Diwali, the festival of light. In September 1965, the Labour government proclaimed that Britain was a multi-racial society. We were not sure then, but we can now confirm that the United Kingdom is a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. The enlightened attitude of many people in our society who celebrated this event confirms that. But celebration seems to me to be the wrong word. In the aftermath of the Cold War, fundamentalism seems to have replaced communism.
	Fundamentalism is always identified with strongly held religious beliefs. It exists in all religions, but Islam seems to have been singled out, and I suspect that the events of 9/11 are responsible for that.
	I am a Hindu, but Islam is one of the great religions of the world. It is a peaceful religion, although it is not always interpreted as such by some of its followers. We need to explain events such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the western media condemn Islamic fundamentalism, little is said about Christian fundamentalism and its grip on the White House. We no longer talk about war; we talk about crusades; we talk about international communities by saying, "Either you're with us or you're against us".
	We can have all those arguments, but I shall cite just three examples, all of which lead us to the belief that an enlightened attitude is important. The first relates to Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses. The book caused deep rumbling among faithful Muslims offended by its content, prompting protests, book burning and even riots, in which several people were killed. The second example, rightly mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Weatherill, happened last weekend. The loyal Sikh community laid siege to a theatre with the intention of cancelling a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a Sikh temple. They were not against the play as such, but against identifying such an incident in a gurdwara, which is sacrosanct to their beliefs.
	The third relates to the evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 14 December. A statement was made by Mr Jagdeesh Singh against the Swaminarayan Hindu mission alleging that the Neasden temple had become a base for the terrorist activities of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. It is the most majestic temple, visited by over a million people since its inauguration, whose principal belief is in non-violence. Its record on the reintegration of the inner-city area is second to none; its poverty alleviation programme abroad and its contribution to victims of earthquakes in Gujarat is also very much appreciated. Its spiritual leader, Pramukh Swami, prevented communal violence after one of the temples was attacked by terrorists.
	What do all those incidents point to? They have all hurt the deepest feelings of those who practice those different religions. That should cause no surprise to anyone. I do not question our freedom of speech or liberal values, but we often fail to understand that free speech in a libertarian society also carries responsibilities with it. We cannot condemn Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs as being illiberal in a society in which racial and religious discrimination is rife and people often take shelter within their religious structure. We need enlightened attitudes to ensure that in a democracy we do not isolate communities and leave them to fend for themselves. These three incidents beg for a debate to be opened up with our minorities.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for tabling this important debate. The question has relevance to many events of this and the previous century; I am thinking here of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. One could even go as far back as the Crusades. The current situation in our world is very serious and also very depressing, as it would sometimes seem that we had been here before and—although I hesitate to say it—that we have learned nothing.
	We are all well aware of the destructive nature of Muslim extremists—with deference to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, this evening, I stress the word "extremist"—who are currently using their religion as a force for evil in the Middle East and in western countries. However, we must not become too focused on them alone. We should also be aware that most if not all religions have extreme wings, groups that use their ideology in a way that most find abhorrent. We must conclude that no one religion is blameless and that no one religion has the answer.
	We on these Benches would like the Government to support and indeed promote tolerance for all religions, races and ways of life. Indeed, I do not even care for the word tolerance; it tends to connote something with which we must all contend rather than embrace. The Government clearly believe that the best way in which to approach the matter is to create yet more new laws that will target, for example, incitement to religious hatred. We have genuine concerns that such laws, if introduced, could have a totally negative impact on our culture and on our beloved freedoms in this country.
	We on these Benches feel that the right path to enlightened religious attitudes and to having a regard for religious differences is to raise awareness from an early age and to educate society into a better understanding of those differences. I wholeheartedly support all that my noble friend Lady Perry and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, said with regard to having such education from a young age. It is all about having a better understanding of our differences. However, that religious teaching must not be conducted in isolation; clearly it is now also crucially important to articulate in our schools and in our communities some of those core freedoms that we enjoy in this country—freedoms that many have fought for, that most of us believe are crucial to our society and that we can no longer take for granted.
	There is no doubt that we must be careful when dealing with how best to tackle attitudes to the international situation and how best to promote acceptance of religious differences. I come back to the point that I have just made—legislating on this matter is not the right solution. Legislation will almost certainly lead to the unintended consequence of curbing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We must be careful that our reactions to extremists are not extreme in themselves. We would not want to be so afraid of what others might do or say that we start to chip away at the foundation principles of our great society.
	We agree with the sentiment of the argument expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. The Government should promote and support religion, and it should be of all faiths. We should not make the mistake of confusing religion with terrorism itself. We in this country are fortunate to have a free and fair society. It is built on such principles as the rule of law and freedom of speech. We must ensure that in order to combat extremists we do not destroy what they are seeking to undermine. What happened this weekend in a theatre in the Midlands with regard to a Sikh play should strengthen our resolve to leave the law well alone. Should we not have allowed "Murder in the Cathedral"?
	Besides, we could go on legislating to try to stop people saying all sorts of things that may offend others. Surely the right path is to focus on encouraging people of all faiths to think positively about each others' differences and to respect each others' differences. We should get to know each other, and this must be a two way street for all of us of all faiths. I noticed that a number of noble Lords used the expression "get to know each other". The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, suggested having a United Nations for all faiths. I often think how brilliant it would have been if, instead of having the Dome to mark the millennium, we could have had one ecumenical church representing all faiths to mark it. What a tragic waste that we missed that opportunity.
	In saying that, I turn to the right reverend Prelate and say with great respect that the Church of England has a very powerful and proactive part to play without diluting its own religion—it is my religion—and its own beliefs. Two weeks ago I was lucky enough to attend an Advent carol service with the Archbishop of Canterbury. During the service the Archbishop spoke of,
	"learning to find hidden harmonies".
	Those simple, powerful words echo those of Martin Luther King who, 40 years ago, said that we must all focus upon learning the practical art of living in harmony. When will we learn? However difficult and however painful, we must all keep trying.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say immediately how grateful I am to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for the debate. A number of noble Lords commented on its shortness, but quantity is not always the final determinant of quality. Length is not always the only thing that counts. We have had a very insightful and, if I may say so, erudite debate.
	Several themes have come out of the debate: love, spoken of by my noble friend Lord Judd; partnership; working together; understanding each other; and getting to know each other better. Those are extremely powerful indicators of what defines us as human beings, but also as the basis for all faiths. It is extremely important that we are having this debate tonight, and noble Lords will know that it is not in my gift or the gift of the Government as to when we have another debate. I am sure that, as a result of the quality of this debate, the usual channels would probably not be forgiven if more space were not found at some stage for such a debate.
	We have ranged across some important issues. Noble Lords will know that the Government are committed to generating good relations, understanding and tolerance between people of all faiths and of none, as part of building a cohesive society. We work with faith communities, with media bodies, with the Local Government Association and with governmental and non-governmental agencies to deal with prejudice and hatred. It is only by us all working together that the changes that we so desperately seek can be made.
	Understanding the role that faith plays in people's lives is vital to community cohesion and good race relations. Many faith groups reach out to the wider community, providing facilities, undertaking practical projects and harnessing their commitment and drive to improve everyone's life. Therefore, it was right that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, gave out the injunction that it is not just words that we will be judged by, it is deeds that are the basis of real understanding. The Government recognise that faith communities have a vital role to play in civil renewal and promoting active citizenship. As part of the commitment to building a tolerant and cohesive society, we actively support interfaith dialogue in the UK, which is achieved through support for a number of interfaith activities. Therefore, I very much understood my noble friend Lord Judd's exhortation for all religious groups to work together in humanitarian endeavours. I am sure that there is the burgeoning of that as an idea, and I agree with him.
	One example is the core funding being provided by the Home Office to the Interfaith Network for the UK, the sole national body linking interfaith initiatives and faith representative bodies. Government funding has enabled the Interfaith Network to map patterns of local interfaith activity, resulting in a set of guidelines for local authorities wishing to foster interfaith activity. We are also committed to supporting interfaith activities for young people. Past examples include the Golden Jubilee Young People's Faith Forum and the three model Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings for young people of faith in association with the Royal and Commonwealth Society.
	Another important initiative, and one that noble Lords will be interested in, is the Imam-Rabbi dialogue, which I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, is more than familiar with, facilitated by the Home Office. It brings together orthodox ministers of religion from those two communities to talk about commonalities between the two Abrahamic faiths. It also provides an opportunity for religious leaders to demonstrate that, despite differences, it is still possible to engage with and exchange views in the spirit of learning and mutual respect. Although we do not quite have the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, we have the seeds of that development, which is important.
	The Government have worked in partnership with faith communities in the delivery of initiatives such as faith-based celebrations of the millennium, the Golden Jubilee and the Working Together review, published in March 2004, of co-operation between the Government and faith communities. In addition, Ministers regularly visit places of worship and attend faith-based celebrations and will continue to do so.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that I understand her vision of interfaith schools, which is not a separation of faiths but bringing each faith together; each faith honoured; and all faiths participating together in a common space. I do not think that idea does violence to the importance of single-faith schools, which are very much part of the scene, and which we have supported. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that his fear that somehow that will be expunged is not well founded, because we honour those traditions.
	As everyone has made declarations, I suppose that I should say that I am probably the embodiment of ecumenical activity, having a Methodist father and a Roman Catholic mother, and being married to the son of an Ulster Protestant. To be full and frank, I should also say that I was a Shabbas goy for many years, so I have most bases covered. Such bringing together is of enormous importance, because it enriches our communities.
	As the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Dholakia, made clear, the media play an important role in promoting understanding between communities and in building community cohesion—or not, as the case may be. We are working with the Society of Editors and the Media Trust to produce guidance for editors and journalists reporting on issues of faith, race and community cohesion. The guidance for both print and broadcasting media will be available in February 2005. It follows the publication of a toolkit in May 2004 for local authorities on the need to build relationships with the media to promote wider understanding between communities, particularly at neighbourhood level.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Perry and Lady Buscombe, have fears in relation to our new proposals on incitement to religious hatred. However, those concerns are not well founded. We are committed to tackling and eradicating discrimination and inequality wherever they occur. As noble Lords will be aware, we have recently announced a plan to introduce legislation to protect people from religious discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises. The measure will close the loophole that currently means that although people are protected against discrimination on the basis of race, nationality or national or ethnic origin, they are not protected against discrimination on grounds of religion except in employment.
	The Government's proposal includes a new offence that will close the loophole that Jews and Sikhs are protected from incited hatred. The courts have ruled that they are covered by the existing offences of incitement to racial hatred, whereas other faith groups are not so protected. The new offences will address that without doing violence to our community or culture, or impinging improperly on other matters.
	I am aware that concerns have been expressed that the new offence will restrict free speech, particularly the telling of jokes about religion or religious leaders. I reassure noble Lords that the proposed offence will not criminalise the telling of such jokes. Some would like us to criminalise the telling of bad jokes, which would be a more challenging matter, particularly for some of us in this House. The offence will maintain the necessary high thresholds of incitement to racial hatred. Material must be knowingly threatening, abusive or insulting and either intended or likely to stir up hatred, with all prosecutions requiring the consent of the Attorney-General. The then Home Secretary's statement on 7 December, made with the agreement of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, ought to reassure people that free-speech concerns are unfounded.
	The right reverend Prelate raised some powerful issues in relation to the wider international dimensions, such as those about Turkey and its EU membership. This is an important moment for us, because the negotiations with Turkey are likely to last a decade. Throughout Turkey, we will need to demonstrate continuing progress on a number of issues, including religious freedoms. The United Kingdom Government will place particular emphasis on effective implementation, because that will make the difference.
	Of course we understand that, in Sharia law, there are extreme punishments such as stoning, amputation and execution that are wholly inconsistent with international human rights standards. Those matters need to be addressed. The United Kingdom is concerned about the plight of apostates throughout the world, and we take every opportunity to urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect.
	We can all make a contribution in relation to world matters and I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to playing their part. I want also to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that one-fifth of all respondents considered religion to be an important part of their self identity. For Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and black Christians, religion was ranked second only to family and Jewish respondents ranked religion highest. Therefore, the importance of faith to self-identity is particularly strong. Two-thirds of Sikhs and Hindus viewed religion as important to their identity. That analysis, if nothing else, underscores for us the real importance that faith can play.
	Each participant in the debate has made a valuable contribution. I do not neglect my noble friend Lord Ahmed, who spoke so powerfully not only about the beauty of the religion but also the importance of partnership and truth, as indeed did the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. We can be proud of the debate because it was a good one.

Charities Bill [HL]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment and functions of the Charity Commission for England and Wales and the Charity Appeal Tribunal; to make other amendments of the law about charities, including provisions about charitable incorporated organisations; to make further provision about public charitable collections and other fundraising carried on in connection with charities and other institutions; to make other provision about the funding of such institutions; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.